DOCSLIB.ORG

Inquiry Into Nuclear Prohibition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inquiry Into Nuclear Prohibition PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Environment and Planning Committee Inquiry into nuclear prohibition Parliament of Victoria Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee Ordered to be published VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER November 2020 PP No 181, Session 2018–2020 ISBN 978 1 922425 12 6 (print version), 978 1 922425 13 3 (PDF version) Committee membership CHAIR DEPUTY CHAIR Cesar Melhem Clifford Hayes Western Metropolitan Southern Metropolitan Dr Matthew Bach Melina Bath Jeff Bourman David Limbrick Eastern Metropolitan Eastern Victoria Eastern Victoria South Eastern Metropolitan Andy Meddick Dr Samantha Ratnam Nina Taylor Sonja Terpstra Western Victoria Northern Metropolitan Southern Metropolitan Eastern Metropolitan Participating members Georgie Crozier, Southern Metropolitan Dr Catherine Cumming, Western Metropolitan Hon. David Davis, Southern Metropolitan Dr Tien Kieu, South Eastern Metropolitan Bev McArthur, Western Victoria Tim Quilty, Northern Victoria ii Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee About the Committee Functions The Environment and Planning Committee (Legislation and References) is established under the Legislative Council Standing Orders Chapter 23—Council Committees and Sessional Orders. The Committee’s functions are to inquire into and report on any proposal, matter or thing concerned with the arts, environment and planning the use, development and protection of land. The Environment and Planning Committee (References) may inquire into, hold public hearings, consider and report on other matters that are relevant to its functions. The Environment and Planning Committee (Legislation) may inquire into, hold public hearings, consider and report on any Bills or draft Bills referred by the Legislative Council, annual reports, estimates of expenditure or other documents laid before the Legislative Council in accordance with an Act, provided these are relevant to its functions. Government Departments allocated for oversight: • Department of the Environment, Land, Water and Planning • Department of Premier and Cabinet. Inquiry into nuclear prohibition iii About the Committee Secretariat Michael Baker, Committee Manager Vivienne Bannan, Inquiry Officer Caitlin Connolly, Research Assistant Justine Donohue, Administrative Officer Contact details Address Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee Parliament of Victoria Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Phone 61 3 8682 2869 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc This report is available on the Committee’s website. iv Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee Contents Preliminaries Terms of Reference viii Chair’s foreword ix Findings xi 1 About the Inquiry 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Terms of Reference 1 1.3 Submissions 2 1.4 Public Hearings 2 2 Nuclear activity and regulation in Australia 3 2.1 Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 (Vic) 3 2.1.1 Effect of repealing the Prohibitions Act 3 2.2 Commonwealth laws and national regulatory framework 5 2.2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) 7 2.2.2 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (Cth) 8 2.2.3 Commonwealth regulatory agencies 9 2.3 Regulation of nuclear and radiation‑related activities in Victoria 11 2.3.1 Radiation Act 2005 and Radiation Regulations 11 2.4 Lucas Heights Reactor 13 2.4.1 Open Pool Australian Light-water (OPAL) Reactor 14 2.4.2 Nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceuticals production 14 3 Australian uranium and thorium mining and export 17 3.1 Uranium: national overview 17 3.1.1 Mining and production 17 3.1.2 Export 19 3.1.3 Issues relating to uranium mining 20 3.2 Thorium 25 3.3 Uranium and thorium mining in Victoria 26 3.3.1 Uranium mining 27 3.3.2 Thorium mining 30 Inquiry into nuclear prohibition v Contents 4 National energy policy and nuclear power in the National Electricity Market 33 4.1 Overview of the current energy industry 33 4.1.1 Energy consumption in Australia 33 4.1.2 Victorian context 38 4.2 Nuclear and renewables in the energy mix 43 4.2.1 An energy market in transition 43 4.2.2 State of the Energy Market 2020 44 4.2.3 Integrated System Plan 2020 46 4.2.4 A mix of technologies 47 4.3 Supply and demand: grid stability and energy security 49 4.3.1 Grid stability 49 4.3.2 Energy security 53 5 Costs of nuclear energy 59 5.1 Introduction 59 5.2 Costing of energy 59 5.2.1 How are costs compared across different electricity technologies? 59 5.2.2 Australia 61 5.2.3 Conclusion 71 6 Nuclear fuel cycle and power generation 73 6.1 Nuclear power generation and the fuel cycle 73 6.1.1 Nuclear fission 73 6.1.2 Generating electricity with nuclear energy 73 6.1.3 Nuclear fuel cycle 74 6.2 Viability of other nuclear fuel cycle activities 75 6.2.1 Enrichment and fuel fabrication 75 6.2.2 Reprocessing of nuclear fuel 78 6.2.3 Waste Management 81 6.2.4 Waste from nuclear power generation 82 6.3 New and emerging technologies 84 6.3.1 Small Modular Reactors 87 6.3.2 Thorium 101 7 Nuclear energy issues: security and safety 107 7.1 Introduction 107 7.2 Security and weapons non‑proliferation 107 7.2.1 Australian settings 107 7.2.2 Nuclear security 112 7.2.3 Expansion of nuclear activities in Victoria and Australia 115 vi Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee Contents 7.3 Health and safety 115 7.3.1 Public health 116 7.3.2 Nuclear plant safety and accidents 124 8 Nuclear energy issues: waste management and the environment 149 8.1 Introduction 149 8.2 Waste and waste management 149 8.2.1 Radioactive waste management in Australia: current approach 149 8.2.2 Potential high-level waste management in Australia and Victoria 154 8.2.3 Views about waste management and disposal 155 8.2.4 The Committee’s view 158 8.3 Environmental impacts of nuclear energy 159 8.3.1 Low or no emission technology 160 8.3.2 Nuclear risks a much lesser evil than climate change 165 8.3.3 Contrary views on nuclear impact on the environment 171 9 Public opinion and social licence to operate 177 9.1 Community engagement 177 9.1.1 Traditional Owners and First Nations People 179 9.2 Social licence to operate 181 9.2.1 Community consent 184 9.2.2 Intergenerational equity 187 10 Nuclear activities in Victoria 191 10.1 Nuclear‑related opportunities in Victoria 191 10.1.1 Nuclear medicine 191 10.1.2 Thorium exploration and mining 197 Appendix 1 About the Inquiry 199 Extract of proceedings 205 Minority reports 229 Inquiry into nuclear prohibition vii Terms of Reference On 14 August 2019, the Legislative Council agreed to the following motion: That this House requires the Environment and Planning Committee to inquire into, consider and report, within 12 months*, on potential benefits to Victoria in removing prohibitions enacted by the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983, and in particular, the Committee should— 1. investigate the potential for Victoria to contribute to global low carbon dioxide energy production through enabling exploration and production of uranium and thorium; 2. identify economic, environmental and social benefits for Victoria, including those related to medicine, scientific research, exploration and mining; 3. identify opportunities for Victoria to participate in the nuclear fuel cycle; and 4. identify any barriers to participation, including limitations caused by federal or local laws and regulations. * Reporting date extended to 30 November 2020. viii Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee Chair’s foreword The current energy market in Australia is in a state of transition, with major fossil fuel (coal) power generation plants reaching the end of their life and being replaced by other sources of electricity generation. Concerns about climate change and the impact of fossil fuels on carbon emissions, not only within Australia but globally, has driven this shift away from fossil fuels towards variable renewable energy sources. It is this need to shift towards low-emissions power generation that the question of nuclear power has been raised in recent years. Currently nuclear power plays no role in energy generation in Australia and never has. In fact, since the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 (Vic) was enacted, there has been a legal prohibition on the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Victoria. In addition to the Victorian legislation, Commonwealth laws also prohibit the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation across Australia. It is this legal prohibition of nuclear energy production that has been the focus of this Inquiry. During the course of the Inquiry, which attracted 80 submissions and during which the Committee held six days of public hearings of witnesses from Australia and overseas, the Committee heard a range of evidence both supporting and opposing the removal of the legal prohibitions on nuclear energy. In this report, the Committee makes no recommendations and does not take a strong position on nuclear power as an alternative energy source in Australia, and particularly in Victoria. It is clear that currently, it is not possible to accurately cost nuclear energy, as no nuclear energy industry exists in Australia and therefore any costing would be speculative and based on experiences of other countries with different infrastructure. However, figures produced by the CSIRO would indicate that traditional nuclear energy generation is currently expensive and unlikely to be taken up in Australia. It will be interesting to see over the next few years whether new nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) which are in the final stages of development, change the costing of nuclear energy over time. Of course, the cost is only one element of the viability of nuclear power. Issues of waste management, public and environmental safety, potential health impacts and a range of other issues would need to be carefully considered before nuclear power became a reality in Australia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1, 2002, Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia
    Minutes for the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee Meeting September 30 to October 1, 2002, Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia NERAC members present: John Ahearne Dale Klein (Monday only) Thomas Cochran Robert Long Joseph Comfort Warren F. Miller, Jr. Michael Corradini Sekazi Mtingwa Jose Luis Cortez Richard Reba (Monday only) Maureen Crandall (Monday afternoon Joy Rempe and Tuesday only) Allen Sessoms Allen Croff Daniel Sullivan James Duderstadt (Chair) John Taylor Marvin Fertel (Monday only) Neil Todreas Beverly Hartline Joan Woodard (Monday only) Andrew Klein NERAC members absent: Steve Fetter Lura Powell Leslie Hartz C. Bruce Tarter J. Bennett Johnston Ashok Thadani (ad hoc) Linda C. Knight Charles E. Till Benjamin F. Montoya Also present: Ralph Bennett, Director for Advanced Nuclear Energy, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory David Berg, Office of Environmental Management, DOE Nancy Carder, NERAC Staff Herbert Feinroth, President, Gamma Engineering Corp. John Gutteridge, University Programs, NE, USDOE Norton Haberman, Senior Technical Advisor, NE, USDOE Anthony Hechanova, Director, AAA University Participation Program, University of Nevada at Las Vegas R. Shane Johnson, Associate Director, Office of Technology and International Cooperation, NE, USDOE Silvia Jurisson, Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia Owen Lowe, Associate Director, Office of Isotopes for Medicine and Science, NE, USDOE William Magwood, Director, NE, USDOE William Martin, Washington Policy Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Ceramic Mineral Waste-Forms for Nuclear Waste Immobilization
    materials Review Ceramic Mineral Waste-Forms for Nuclear Waste Immobilization Albina I. Orlova 1 and Michael I. Ojovan 2,3,* 1 Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, 23 Gagarina av., 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation 2 Department of Radiochemistry, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia 3 Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 31 May 2019; Accepted: 12 August 2019; Published: 19 August 2019 Abstract: Crystalline ceramics are intensively investigated as effective materials in various nuclear energy applications, such as inert matrix and accident tolerant fuels and nuclear waste immobilization. This paper presents an analysis of the current status of work in this field of material sciences. We have considered inorganic materials characterized by different structures, including simple oxides with fluorite structure, complex oxides (pyrochlore, murataite, zirconolite, perovskite, hollandite, garnet, crichtonite, freudenbergite, and P-pollucite), simple silicates (zircon/thorite/coffinite, titanite (sphen), britholite), framework silicates (zeolite, pollucite, nepheline /leucite, sodalite, cancrinite, micas structures), phosphates (monazite, xenotime, apatite, kosnarite (NZP), langbeinite, thorium phosphate diphosphate, struvite, meta-ankoleite), and aluminates with a magnetoplumbite structure. These materials can contain in their composition various cations in different combinations and ratios: Li–Cs, Tl, Ag, Be–Ba, Pb, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Cd, B, Al, Fe, Ga, Sc, Cr, V, Sb, Nb, Ta, La, Ce, rare-earth elements (REEs), Si, Ti, Zr, Hf, Sn, Bi, Nb, Th, U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm. They can be prepared in the form of powders, including nano-powders, as well as in form of monolith (bulk) ceramics.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP “Extreme” Consequence Tailings Dams with Potential to Cause Fatality of 100 Employees
    BHP “Extreme” consequence tailings dams with potential to cause fatality of 100 employees: Briefing Paper by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner - 22 May 2020 BHP has Questions to answer on Worker Safety, Transparency and Accountability at Olympic Dam BHP took over Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine in 2005, operating the mine for a decade before a GHD “TSF Dam Break Safety Report”1 to BHP in August 2016 concluded all existing Tailings Storage Facilities (TSFs) are “Extreme” consequence tailings dams with a failure potential to cause the death of 100 BHP employees: “BHP OD has assessed the consequence category of the TSFs according to ANCOLD (2012a,b). A dam break study, which considered 16 breach scenarios of TSFs 1 to 5, was completed by GHD (2016) and indicated a potential for tailings and water flow into the mine’s backfill quarry and underground portal. The following conclusions were drawn: • The population at risk (PAR) for a TSF embankment breach is greater than 100 to less than 1000 mine personnel primarily as a result of the potential flow of tailings into the adjacent backfill quarry and entrance to the underground mine. • The financial cost to BHP OD for a tailings dam failure was assessed by BHP OD to be greater than US$1B, a “catastrophic” loss according to ANCOLD guidelines (2012a,b). Based on these criteria, the TSFs at Olympic Dam have been given a consequence category of “Extreme” to guide future assessments and designs. Note that this is an increase compared to the assessment prior to the FY16 Annual Safety Inspection and Review (Golder Associates, 2016a) which classified TSF 1-4 and TSF 5 as “High A” and “High B”, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Body Freezer
    BODY IN THE FREEZER the Case of David Szach Acknowledgements I am indebted to editorial comments and suggestions from Jan McInerney, Pat Sheahan, Anthony Bishop, Dr Harry Harding, Michael Madigan, and Dr Bob Moles. Andrew Smart of Blackjacket Studios designed the cover. I especially appreciate the support of my wife, Liz. ISBN: 978-0-9944162-0-9 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Printed in Adelaide by Griffin Press Any enquiries to the author’s email: [email protected] BODY IN THE FREEZER the Case of David Szach TOM MANN Author’s note Following the publication of the Edward Splatt case in Flawed Forensics, David Szach approached me to examine and write up his case. I met with David Szach a number of times to record his version of events and his efforts to clear his name for the murder of lawyer Derrance Stevenson. After examining the trial transcripts, the grounds for appeal, and the reports by forensic scientists investigating the evidence presented by the forensic pathologist, I unravel the crime to reveal its hidden nature and consequences. CONTENTS Introduction … 1 1: Body in the freezer … 3 2: Prime suspect … 7 3: Derrance Stevenson and the Adelaide scene … 21 4: Before the trial … 26 5: Trial evidence … 32 6: Dr Colin Manock’s evidence … 47 7: David Szach’s statement … 60 8: Shaky underpinning for the Crown … 73 9: Blood and fingerprints
    [Show full text]
  • Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd) Royal
    Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Scarce AC CSC RAN (Rtd) Royal Commissioner Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission GPO Box 11043 Adelaide SA 5001 3 August 2015 Dear Sir, This is my consolidated submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission addressing selected questions from all Issues Papers. Issues Paper One: Exploration, Extraction and Milling My response to Question 1.7 regarding the demand for uranium in the medium and long term is as follows. To begin, I quote the Commissioner from the article titled, “Jobs in nuclear industry are ‘decades away’”, published in The Advertiser on 25 July 2015: “If we decided – and we haven’t decided yet – to recommend parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, it would be a couple of decades before we started to see the major impact.” I submit that at this point in time there is no way to prove a sound basis exists for concluding there will be increased demand for uranium in the medium and long term. No doubt nuclear proponents will point to the world’s increasing energy needs, especially of the two developing giants, China and India. On the demand side, it is true the world will be looking for emissions-free energy on a massive scale to replace traditional fossil fuels. If uranium for producing nuclear energy was the only option to replace fossil fuels, I would not be writing this submission. The fact is, it is not the only option. Another, better option exists in renewable energy, and I submit that in a much shorter time than it would take to establish a nuclear industry in South Australia, the world will be turning to renewables in force while eschewing nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens' Jury
    SUNDAY VERSION South Australia’s Citizens’ Jury on Nuclear Waste Final Report November 2016 “Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?” Jury Summary Statement The Citizens Jury would like to Acknowledge that we have been meeting on Kaurna land and we pay our respects to the Traditional owners, past and present, across South Australia. The jury generally had a strong conviction in taking a position one way or another. Two thirds of the jury do not wish to pursue the opportunity under any circumstances and one third support a commitment to pursue under the circumstances outlined in this report. Introduction: Citizen’s Jury 2 (CJ2) was a group of 350 residents of South Australia who were brought together under the remit of discussing and reporting on the question: “Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of high level nuclear waste from other countries?”. To be clear, the jury considered only high-level nuclear waste. The people on Citizen’s Jury Two were selected to be broadly representative of the population of South Australia based on demographics (as best as was possible based on the responses to the initial invitation to take part). The 50 jurors from Citizen’s Jury One were also invited back to be part of the second jury process and approximately 30 of them decided to take part in the second jury. On the first day of the jury, we established some guiding principles for how we should approach the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Closure Management and Rehabilitation Plan Olympic Dam
    CLOSURE MANAGEMENT AND REHABILITATION PLAN OLYMPIC DAM May 2019 Copyright BHP is the sole owner of the intellectual property contained in any documentation bearing its name. All materials including internet pages, documents and online graphics, audio and video, are protected by copyright law. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted in any form or re-used for any commercial purposes whatsoever without the prior written permission of BHP. This document represents the status of the topic at the date shown and is subject to change without notice. The latest version of this document is available from Document Control. © 2019 BHP. All rights reserved. This document is uncontrolled when printed. This Closure and Rehabilitation Plan has been prepared as information only and is not to be relied on as final or definitive. It would continue to be developed and would be subject to change. BHP Olympic Dam Closure Management and Rehabilitation Plan Closure Management Plan Summary Olympic Dam Mine Project Olympic Dam Document Title Olympic Dam Mine Closure Management and Rehabilitation Plan Document Reference 99232 Mining Tenements Special Mining Lease 1 Company Name BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd Electronic Approval Record Business Role Name Authors Role Name Principal Strategic Planning Don Grant Principal Environment A&I Murray Tyler Principal Closure Planning Craig Lockhart Reviewer Role Name Manager Closure Planning Rebecca Wright Superintendent Environment, Radiation and Occupational Hygiene James Owen Principal Legal Zoe Jones Approver Role Name Head of Environment Analysis and Improvement Gavin Price Head of Geoscience and Resource Engineering Amanda Weir Asset President Olympic Dam Laura Tyler Document Amendment Record Version.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoos SA Annual Report 2011-12
    zoossa.com.au zoossa.com.au Passion We inspire and influence through our valuable conservation efforts and recognise success. Effectiveness We focus on clearly defined shared goals and support people to achieve them. Innovation We seek creative ways to achieve goals and promote a culture of learning and improving. Integrity We are guided by our values and deliver on our promises. Respect We respect individual’s values and encourage a culture of collaboration, listening and trust. President’s Report .......................................2 CEO’s Report ............................................4 Board Members ...........................................6 List of Achievements ...................................7 The Animals ...........................................11 Conservation ............................................20 Education ................................................23 Sustainability ...........................................24 Visitation .................................................26 Communications & Development .................28 Our People ..............................................34 Assets & Infrastructure ..............................41 Life Members ...........................................42 Finance ...................................................54 AGM Minutes (2011) ................................59 SGM Minutes (2012) .................................62 Zoos South Australia Annual Report 2011/12 1 President’s Report Dusky Langur here is no question that the the overall direction of the business.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Board 1 South Australia
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 3 August 2015 Rear Admiral the Honourable Kevin Sca rce AC CSC RAN (Rtd) Roya l Commissioner for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Level 5, 50 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Dear Commissioner RE: Nuclear fuel Cycle Royal Commission I write to provide a discussion paper prepared by ThinkCiimate for the Economic Development Board (EDB), that responds to the four issues papers released by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Roya l Commission on: Exploration, Extraction and Milling; Further Processing and Manufacture; Electricity Generation; and Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste. In October 2014, in the absence of reliable and cu rrent data and evidence on the nuclear value chain, the EDB commissioned ThinkCiimate Consulting to prepare a discussion paper. The purpose of the discussion paper was to explore the opportunities for an expanded role for South Australia in the nuclear value chain and to provide a high level business case to indicate if there is sufficient economic potential to warrant a more thorough investigation. The discussion paper, provided to you as Attachment 1 to this letter, explores the economic opportunities for South Australia at each point in the nuclear value cha in and, therefore, responds to the four Issues Papers released. The discussion paper concludes that: • There is potentially a major economic opportunity for South Australia in the safe management of spent nuclear fuel based on merging mature Intermediate Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFI) technology with Generation IV recycling and reactor technology. • Further a preliminary project assessment finds that a proposed configuration of an ISFSI and Integrated Fast Reactor (IFR) technology would utilise up to approximately 99% of the stored fuel to generate electricity as a low-cost, emissions free baseload with potentially significant economic benefits to South Australia within a relatively short timeframe.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquor Licensing Act 1997— Geographical Names Act 1991— (No
    No. 81 5191 THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE www.governmentgazette.sa.gov.au PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY ALL PUBLIC ACTS appearing in this GAZETTE are to be considered official, and obeyed as such ADELAIDE, THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2009 CONTENTS Page Page Acts Assented To..................................................................... 5192 Mining Act 1971—Notices ..................................................... 5203 Appointments, Resignations, Etc............................................. 5192 National Parks and Wildlife (National Parks) Regulations Controlled Substances Act 1984—Notice ............................... 5193 2001—Notice....................................................................... 5204 Corporations and District Councils—Notices.......................... 5226 Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000—Notices .......... 5204 Crown Lands Act 1929—Notice ............................................. 5193 Proclamations .......................................................................... 5214 Development Act 1993—Notice ............................................. 5194 Public Trustee Office—Administration of Estates .................. 5244 Electoral Act 1985—Notice .................................................... 5194 Environment Protection Act 1993—Notices ........................... 5196 REGULATIONS Gas Act 1997—Notice ............................................................ 5194 Liquor Licensing Act 1997— Geographical Names Act 1991— (No. 267 of 2009)............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threatening Lives, the Environment and People's Future
    other sides to the story Threatening lives, the environment and people’s future An Alternative Annual Report 2010 FRONT COVER: Stockphoto.com INSIDE BACK COVER: BHP Billiton protest. Photo courtesy of the ACE Collective, Friends of the Earth Melbourne. BACK COVER: Mine tailings at the BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam Mine in South Australia (2008). Photo: Jessie Boylan BELOW: Nickel laterite ore being loaded at Manuran Island, Philipines. The ore is then taken by barge to waiting ships. Credit: CT Case studies questioning BHP Billiton’s record on human rights, transparency and ecological justice CONTENTS Introduction 2 BHP Billiton Shadow Report: Shining a light on revenue flows 3 MOZAMBIQUE: The double standards of BHP Billiton 4 WESTERN SAHARA: Bou Craa phosphate mine 6 PHILIPPINES: BHP Billiton pulls out of Hallmark Nickel 7 CAMBODIA: How “tea-money” got BHP-Billiton into hot water 8 PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Ok Tedi – a legacy of destruction 9 BORNEO: Exploiting mining rights in the Heart of Borneo 11 BHP Billiton Around the World 12 COLOMBIA: Cerrejon Coal mine 14 SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Olympic Dam Mine 16 WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Yeelirrie ‘Wanti - Uranium leave it in the ground’ 18 WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Hero or destroyer 20 NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: Farmers triumph 20 Conclusion 21 Footnotes 23 Credits 24 | 1 | BHP Billiton Alternative Annual Report 2010 This report examines a number of BHP Billiton’s activities must not take place. To date, BHP Billiton has operations around the world. The collection of merely noted that there are “a wide diversity of views” on case studies highlights the disparity between BHP FPIC, and fails to rise to the challenge needed to genuinely Billiton’s ‘Sustainability Framework’ and the reality implement it.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP Billiton: Dirty Energy
    dirty energy Alternative Annual Report 2011 Contents Introduction 1 BHP Global mining operations – dirty energy investments 3 Coal BHP Billiton in Colombia: Destroying communities for coal 4 BHP Billiton in Indonesia: Going for Deadly Coal in Indonesia 7 BHP Billiton in Australia: When too much in!uence is never enough 8 BHP Billiton Australia: Coal mine workers "ght back - Queensland 10 BHP Billiton Australia: BHP battle with farmers - New South Wales 10 Oil and Gas and Greenhouse Gases BHP Billiton globally: Re-carbonising instead of decarbonising 11 BHP Billiton in Australia: Hero or destroyer? 12 Uranium BHP Billiton in Australia: “Wanti” uranium – leave it 13 BHP Billiton in Australia: Irradiating the future 15 BHP Billiton in Indonesia: Mining for REDD a false solution to climate change 18 Solutions? Less mining, more reuse and recycling? 19 Moving into rare earths? 20 Footnotes 22 Introduction “More than 30 million people were displaced in 2010 by environmental and weather-related disasters across Asia, experts have warned, and the problem is only likely to grow worse as cli- mate change exacerbates such problems. Tens of millions more people are likely to be similarly displaced in the future by the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, floods, droughts and reduced agricultural productivity. Such people are likely to migrate in regions across Asia, and governments must start to prepare for the problems this will create.” – Asian Development Bank Report1 %+3 %LOOLWRQ LV WKH ZRUOG¶V ODUJHVW GLYHUVL¿HG QDWXUDO SROLF\
    [Show full text]