Strong Aboriginal resistance to Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium project

May 23, 2013

We must note that approval for this project does not mean that the deal is done and dusted. Activists should take inspiration from the recent campaign at James Price Point which saw Woodside forced to shelve its plans for a gas hub there. In that case an organised community campaign pushed the big business interests back.

Labor approves WA’s first uranium mine, Socialist Party, 10 May 13,  Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke gave the go ahead to Toro’s $270 million uranium mining project in the Wiluna region of Western Australia last month. This decision has angered many people across the state especially the local aboriginal community – the Wiluna and Tarpla people.

Wiluna elder, Glen Cooke, said “Uranium should stay in the ground. It can hurt our Country, the environment, our people, our children, our children’s children”.

Toro Energy has plans afoot for two open-cut mines at Centipede and Lake Way producing at least 780 tonnes of uranium oxide a year for at least 14 years. Uranium can provide the raw material for nuclear reactors as well as for nuclear weapons. Every month three trucks will carry concentrated powered ore 2,700 km to the port of Adelaide.

Uranium mining has been responsible for the largest collective exposure of workers to radiation. One estimate puts the number of workers who have died of lung cancer and silicosis due to mining at 20,000. Low level radiation is also implicated in birth defects, high infant mortality and chronic lung, eye, skin and reproductive illnesses.

There are two main problems with the uranium mining and the nuclear Industry. Firstly there is the danger of monumental disasters. Secondly there is the unresolved issue of how to safely store nuclear waste.

In less than 60 years of nuclear power generation there have been four major nuclear incidents – Windscale (now Sellafield in the UK), Three Mile Island in the US, Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, and Fukushima in Japan. These have been caused by a combination of human error and technical failure. There is no reason to think others can not happen again in the future…….

The truth is that approval for this project has nothing to do with jobs or benefits for local communities. The ALP have ticked off this project so that their rich mates in the mining sector can profit at the expense of workers, the environment and community safety.

We must note that approval for this project does not mean that the deal is done and dusted. Activists should take inspiration from the recent campaign at James Price Point which saw Woodside forced to shelve its plans for a gas hub there. In that case an organised community campaign pushed the big business interests back…… http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/5188

Australia’s uranium industry does well in subsidies, tax benefits, and govt infrastructure

May 23, 2013

AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM EXPORT REVENUE IN PERSPECTIVE  YELLOWCAKE FEVER Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths , Australian Conservation Foundation “……BHP Billiton enjoys extensive subsidies in the  form of fuel-tax credits (formerly known as diesel  fuel rebates). Under the mine expansion plan, the  company would have enjoyed $350 million in diesel  fuel rebates over five years – more than was to  be paid to the State in royalties from the existing  underground mine over the same period – and an  effective subsidy of $85 million annually to 2050.

A 2012 Australia Institute report found that at a time  when the mining industry is earning record profits,  it received subsidies and concessions worth more  than $4 billion per year from the Federal Government alone. The biggest single subsidy comes in the formof fuel-tax credits, valued at $1.9 billion in 2009/10

Uranium mining companies – and the Australian Uranium Association – fought the proposed Resources  Super Profits Tax in 2010. Ross Gittins wrote in The Age in February 2013: “Last year the mining industry  accounted for more than a fifth of all the profit made  in Australia, even though it had a much smaller  share of the economy. This was mainly because  the royalties charged by the state governments  failed to capture enough of the market value of the  minerals the largely foreign-owned miners were being  permitted to extract.

When the Rudd government tried  to correct this with a resource super profits tax, the  industry set out to bring about its electoral defeat.”

Uranium was to be included in the proposed  Resource Super Profit Tax, but it was subsequently  excluded from the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. A 2011 report by the Australia Institute notes  that the average rate of corporate tax paid by  the mining industry in 2008/09 was 13.9% –  substantially below the theoretical 30%…..”http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf

Australia’s media irresponsibly silent on the dire state of the uranium industry

May 23, 2013
the media hasn’t responded at all. In March 2013, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics reduced its mid-term forecast for uranium revenue by nearly half, and the media was silent. The Australian Conservation Foundation released a detailed, factual report on April 26 exposing the uranium industry’s economic misinformation, and the media was silent.
the economic benefits are grossly overstated (and amplified and regurgitated) and contrary facts are ignored.
Uranium – fool’s oil  http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/7/climate/uranium-fools-oil#ixzz2SlerByPC  

In the mid-2000s, uranium was the ‘new black’ as The Bulletin put it and investors could take their pick in this “radioactive heaven”. The number of listed uranium juniors doubled, and doubled again … and again and again.

A company sent radioactive drill samples for assay and quickly became the most traded stock on the ASX (leading to a suspension of share trading). Residents of the small Pacific Island Niue were surprised to learn from an Australian company that they might be sitting on 10 per cent of the world’s uranium, and surprised again when the project was abandoned two months later − easy come, easy go. The uranium spot price increased ten-fold and more, peaking at $US138/lb in June 2007.

Michael Angwin, the Australian Uranium Association’s Executive Director, said in 2008 that Australia “has enough reserves to be to uranium what Saudi Arabia is to oil.” Only a pedant would note that Saudi oil generates 466 times as much revenue as Australian uranium (and that most of ‘our’ uranium revenue never comes anywhere near Australia because of the high level of foreign ownership).

Politicians from the major parties have been only too happy to regurgitate uranium industry propaganda – for example former SA politicians Mike Rann and Kevin Foley have made the comparison with Saudi oil.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission could hold uranium miners and wannabes to account for peddling misinformation – but it doesn’t. Business journalists could hold the uranium industry to account − but they usually don’t.Claims that nuclear power growth in China, India and Russia will drive huge increases in uranium exports are routinely and uncritically regurgitated yet they don’t withstand the simplest calculations. For example it is routinely claimed that uranium sales to Russia will generate $1 billion annually − but Australia would need to supply entire Russian demand twice over to generate that amount of export revenue.

Milk and cream generate almost twice as much revenue as uranium − so where are the newspaper column-inches with pithy headlines about corporate ‘moovers and shakers’; where the ponderous weekend think-pieces about how the nation that once rode on a sheep’s back is now attached to a cow’s udder? Why isn’t milk the ‘new black’?

We could turn to academia for some common sense. There we find Professor George Dracoulis − a member of the 2006 Switkowski Panel − wondering aloud whether uranium will “make or break Australia as an exporter.” Hardly – Australia could supply entire world demand and uranium would account for just 3 per cent of national export revenue and it would still fall short of iron ore export revenue by a factor of 6.5.

There we find Professor Barry Brook insisting that there was no credible risk of a serious accident at Fukushima even as nuclear meltdown was in full swing − his follow-up act is a prediction of a four-fold expansion of uranium exports. And there we find Ian Plimer and Haydon Manning drawing comparisons between Australian uranium and Saudi oil.

Even with the uranium price tanking in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, the Global Financial Crisis, and the failure of the nuclear ‘renaissance’ to materialise, journalists are still reading from the same script. Significant, protracted price falls are met with predictions that the market will soon turn. A November 2012 article in The Australian, titled ‘Yellowcake starts to glow again’, speculated that the uranium price may be close to bottoming.

A March 2012 report by the federal government’s Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics predicted a near three-fold increase in uranium exports by 2016/17 and The Australian responded with an article titled ‘Global uranium demand expected to skyrocket’. So how has the media responded to the further decline in the uranium sector over the past year?

The short answer is that the media hasn’t responded at all. In March 2013, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics reduced its mid-term forecast for uranium revenue by nearly half, and the media was silent. The Australian Conservation Foundation released a detailed, factual report on April 26 exposing the uranium industry’s economic misinformation, and the media was silent.

The bottom line is that when the industry has some ‘good’ news to spruik, it will surely be amplified by dullard politicians, academics, industry ‘analysts’ and Paul Howes – and it will surely be regurgitated by sections of the media. But if you’ve got a story about industry stagnation and decline, forget it. If it’s not good news, it’s not news.

Simple facts − uranium accounting for 0.19 per cent of national export revenue and 0.015 per cent of all jobs in the past financial year − are easily dismissed by talking up the ‘potential’ of the industry. But as Richard Leaver from Flinders University notes:

“Any individual, firm, or sector deemed to have potential is relieved of a massive and perpetual burden – the need to account for past and present achievements (or, more probably, the lack of them). … The history of Australian involvement in the civil uranium industry offers an excellent example of this alchemy at work.”

There are real-world consequences to yellowcake fever − many ‘mum and dad’ investors have been burnt. That problem was most acute during the speculative price bubble in the mid-2000s when small investors were spending big on penny dreadfuls while at least three major utilities were selling shares in Rio Tinto-controlled Energy Resources of Australia. As Tim Treadgold wrote in the West Australian in 2005, “smart money” was selling “while less clued-up people continue to buy uranium penny dreadfuls rather than do something sensible, like bet the house (the wife and the kids) on the horse carrying the jockey wearing pink polka dots in the fourth at Ascot next Saturday.”

There is another problem associated with yellowcake fever. A sober assessment of the economics benefits and the problems and risks associated with the uranium industry is required, but there’s precious little chance of that when the economic benefits are grossly overstated (and amplified and regurgitated) and contrary facts are ignored.

Perhaps the worm will turn after a few more years of industry stagnation. Already there’s plenty for a contrarian journalist to hang a story on. BHP Billiton, for example, has not only cancelled the planned expansion of Olympic Dam but has also disbanded its uranium division and sold the Yeelirrie uranium lease in Western Australia for just 11 per cent of the nominal value of the resource.

Uranium miners might have to pay up a bit, for their environmental messes in Australia’s Northern Territory

May 23, 2013

Miners to pay for mess, NT News, ALISON BEVEGE   |  May 8th, 2013 A MINING levy will raise funds to fix polluted legacy mine sites, the NT Government has announced.

The fee will be 1 per cent of the upfront environmental bond that all miners must pay, as set by the Department of Mines’ Security Assessment Board.

The Government has said the bond would be 100 per cent of clean-up costs but there is no way for the public to tell as the amount is secret. The new levy comes into effect in October.  Mines Minister Willem Westra van Holthe said the impost would raise $6.5 million in its first year………. “We’re simply asking mining companies to chip in to a program that will be used to remediate legacy environmental problems caused by the industry.”

The move comes after the NT News exposed environmental disasters that festered for decades at defunct mines including Rum Jungle, Redbank and Mt Todd.

Camping is banned at the recreational lake near abandoned uranium mine Rum Jungle, 100km south of Darwin, as radiation levels are too high for long-term use…… Environment Centre NT co-ordinator Stuart Blanch said he supported the levy, but it would not be enough to clean up the polluted mine sites which could cost up to a billion dollars….. http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/05/08/320647_ntnews.html

Aborigines do not benefit from uranium mining

May 23, 2013

AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM EXPORT REVENUE IN PERSPECTIVE  YELLOWCAKE FEVER Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths , Australian Conservation Foundation“……..The Australian Uranium Association supports a  profits-based, rather than production-linked, royalty  system in the NT although such a system fails to  provide a certain, secure and assured revenue  platform for Indigenous communities. During the first  5 -10 years of a uranium mining operation, there is  a high likelihood that little or no income would be  generated under a profit-based royalty scheme,  even though there would be direct environmental  and social impacts from any such operations..  ” http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf

Yes, the Paydirt Uranium Conference WAS a dud

May 23, 2013

Uranium sales to India fuel nuclear arms fears 6 MAY 2013  KAREN ASHFORD, SBS  Negotiations to launch Australian uranium exports to India have begun, a move welcomed by the industry at its annual conference in Adelaide…..

……The Gillard government is going down the same route as the US and Canada, circumventing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty y instead striking a bilateral agreement containing safeguards guaranteeing how Australian uranium will be used.

it wasn’t just the protestors who were missing from this year’s Paydirt Uranium Conference in Adelaide. Delegates were scarce too – just 35 peppered the venue, the empty chairs reflective of the post-Fukushima doldrums that have gripped the sector.

A significant number of existing and planned reactors worldwide have been shut down or delayed in response to the disaster as nations reconsider their use of atomic energy, leading to depressed uranium prices and a general industry slowdown……http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1763258/Uranium-sales-to-India-fuel-nuclear-arms-fears

Exposing uranium industry’s inflated claims about economy, employment, in Australia

May 23, 2013
AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM EXPORT REVENUE IN PERSPECTIVE  YELLOWCAKE FEVER Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths , Australian Conservation Foundation “…..IBISWorld’s market report (March 2013) states there are just 650 jobs across Australia in uranium mining.  In May 2006, the federal Department of Industry,  Tourism and Resources estimated “over 700 jobs” in  uranium mining and in October 2007 the Department’s
estimate was “over 800 jobs”. The World Nuclear  Association puts the figure at 1,760 jobs (1,200 in  mining, 500 in exploration and 60 in regulation).
Even the higher World Nuclear Association figure  represents just 0.015% of all jobs in Australia2 and considerably less than 1% of jobs in  mining, oil and gas operations (while all mining  accounts for about 2% of the total workforce). Prime Minister Julia Gillard puts the figure at “over  4,200 jobs” in uranium mining in Australia – presumably  using a 1,400 x 3 multiplier for indirect jobs. Yet Dr  David Gruen from the Macroeconomic Group at  Treasury states that “with unemployment close to  its lowest sustainable rate, it is not the case that  individual industries are creating jobs, they are simply  re-distributing them … there really isn’t a multiplier’’.
Inflated claims and estimates of uranium employment  are neither new nor the domain of one political party.  In 1988, Labor MHR Gordon Bilney claimed that  the unfettered expansion of the uranium industry  would generate 250,000 new jobs. In 2012, Premier  Campbell Newman stated the industry would generate  “thousands of jobs” in Queensland despite not having  any economic analysis to justify this implausible claim.
The Australian Uranium Association claims the  industry is a “significant employer of First Australians,  with some workforces comprising up to 15 per cent  indigenous employees.” In order to better reflect the  Indigenous employment variance between projects, if  we apply a 5% discount rate to the Association’s claim  and assume that Indigenous people comprise 10%  of the uranium workforce (still a generous estimate),  and if we take the highest of the available estimates  of total employment (1,760), that amounts to 176  jobs or roughly one job for every 3,000 Indigenous  Australians – hardly a fast track to closing the gap.  And this is before Dr Gruen’s point about redistribution  is considered in the employment equation…. http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf

Australia’s investors in uranium have been burned

May 23, 2013

Last year the Olympic Dam expansion was cancelled, BHP disbanded its uranium division and sold the Yeelirrie uranium lease in Western Australia for about 11 per cent of the nominal value of the resource.

Also indicative of the state of the industry was Cameco’s announcement in February of a $162.5 million write-down on the Kintyre project in Western Australia. Just months after first production at the Honeymoon mine in north-east SA in September 2011, project partner Mitsui announced its decision to withdraw as it “could not foresee sufficient economic return from the project”.

In addition to industry propaganda, governments routinely inflate the significance and potential of the uranium industry, as do industry “analysts” (some of them market traders), some business journalists and some academics. There are real-world consequences to uranium mania — many “mum and dad” retail investors have been burned, especially during the speculative price bubble in the mid-2000s.

Uranium Industry Dreams Of Paydirt   http://newmatilda.com/2013/05/02/uranium-industry-dreams-paydirt   By Jim Green, 2 May 13,   A new report released by the Australian Conservation Foundation: Yellowcake Fever: Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths, shows that uranium accounted for just 0.29 per cent of Australia’s export revenue in the 10 years from 2002−2011. In the last financial year, uranium revenue of $607 million was 103 times lower than the biggest earner, iron ore. Milk and cream generate twice as much export revenue as uranium — and can’t be turned into Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Uranium export revenue is still more underwhelming given that the four companies mining uranium in Australia are all either majority foreign owned or 100 per cent foreign owned; in other words, a sizeable proportion of that export revenue never leaves the Northern Hemisphere and never comes anywhere near Australia.

By the highest estimate, uranium mining and exploration accounts for 1,760 jobs in Australia — just 0.015 per cent of all jobs. The Australian Uranium Association claims the industry is a “significant employer of First Australians” but in fact it provides just one job for every 3,000 Indigenous Australians.

Uranium mania reached its zenith in the mid-2000s due to a spectacular price bubble which saw the spot price peak at US$138 per pound in June 2007. Since the bubble burst, the uranium industry has been battered as a result of falling prices, the Global Financial Crisis, the failure of the nuclear power “renaissance” to materialise, and serious problems and production shortfalls at Australia’s operating uranium mines.

Since March 2011 the fallout from the Fukushima disaster in Japan (a disaster that was directly fuelled by Australian uranium) has compounded the industry’s problems. In 2006, The Bulletin magazine spoke of a “radioactive heaven” but by late 2011 The Australian described the sector as passing through Death Valley.

A major constraint is the modest size of the global market for uranium. The value of global uranium demand is around $9.6 billion annually. Even if Australia were the world’s sole uranium supplier, uranium revenue would fall short of that from iron ore by a factor of 6.5.

With nine countries producing over 1000 tonnes of uranium annually and 10 countries producing smaller quantities, uranium accounts for a significant fraction of export revenue in just one country — Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan accounted for 36 per cent of global production in 2011, and thus uranium was a significant contributor to the country’s modest national economy and export revenue.

Australia has around 31 per cent of the world’s known recoverable uranium resources (to US$130/kg). However a majority of that uranium is in one location — BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine. Last year the Olympic Dam expansion was cancelled, BHP disbanded its uranium division and sold the Yeelirrie uranium lease in Western Australia for about 11 per cent of the nominal value of the resource.

Also indicative of the state of the industry was Cameco’s announcement in February of a $162.5 million write-down on the Kintyre project in Western Australia. Just months after first production at the Honeymoon mine in north-east SA in September 2011, project partner Mitsui announced its decision to withdraw as it “could not foresee sufficient economic return from the project”.

In addition to industry propaganda, governments routinely inflate the significance and potential of the uranium industry, as do industry “analysts” (some of them market traders), some business journalists and some academics. There are real-world consequences to uranium mania — many “mum and dad” retail investors have been burned, especially during the speculative price bubble in the mid-2000s.

An independent inquiry is long overdue to objectively weigh the uranium industry’s economic benefits against its effects on environmental and public health, safety and security, particularly in the shadow of Fukushima.

Australia’s uranium exports a poor contributor to the economy

May 23, 2013
AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM EXPORT REVENUE IN PERSPECTIVE  YELLOWCAKE FEVER Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths , Australian Conservation Foundation A serious constraint is the modest size of the global market for uranium. Even if all secondary supply is bundled  into the primary market, and lower spot prices are ignored, the figure still falls short of $10 billion p.a:
The claims of mining advocates about the economic benefits to Australia from uranium mining need to  be tempered by consideration of the high level of foreign ownership. Of the four companies producing  uranium as of March 2013: BHP Billiton (Olympic Dam) is 76% foreign-owned, Rio Tinto (Ranger)  83%, General Atomics/Heathgate Resources (Beverley) 100%, and Uranium One (Honeymoon)
100%.1
 There is also considerable foreign ownership of uranium exploration companies.
Much has been written about the mixed economic effects of Australia’s mining boom. Negative impacts include
upward pressure on exchange rates; driving up the costs of skilled labour for businesses in other sectors;
driving up the prices of raw materials used in mining (for example concrete and steel); driving up the cost of
other services (for example construction). However the uranium industry could not be accused of contributing to
those negative impacts to any significant degree – its economic impacts, positive and negative, are minimal.  http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf

AUDIO: exposing the diseconomics of Australia’s uranium industry

May 23, 2013
AUDIO Australia’s uranium industry is high risk, low return, says campaigner http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/australias-uranium-industry-is-high-risk-low-return-says-campaigner/1123008?autoplay=1122972  29 April 2013 Australia’s uranium industry is high risk, low return: that’s the assessment of a report designed to expose the uranium industry’s promise of great economic reward. Its findings suggest uranium accounted for just 0.29 per cent of Australia’s export revenue between 2002 and 2011. 

The report by the Australian Conservation Foundation calls for a national independent inquiry into the industry’s contribution to Australia’s economy and employment.The report comes as uranium advocates meet in Adelaide today for the annual Paydirt Uranium Conference.

Presenter: Richard Ewart

Speaker: Dr Jim Green, national anti-nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth in Melbourne and co-author of the report, ‘Yellowcake Fever: Exposing the Uranium Industry’s Economic Myths’

Excerpts from this audio discussion

Uranium mining is a negligible component of Australia’s export industry…………..Government is listening to corporate interests.
Almost all of Western Autralia’s uranium projects are on hold.
 88% of Australians think we should sell uranium only to countries that are part of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The Uranium Paydirt Conference in Adelaide is bound to hype up the uranium market.  But the  nuclear renaissance never happened…….Uranium exports would need to double to catch up to Australia’s exports of milk and cream. …..Globally uranium is  a small industry. The  hype is not matched by reality
Where is nuclear power sector going in Asia?
One or two countries will develop nuclear power for the first time. Vietnam  apossibility. Indonesia not likley Growth in India and China from  a very low base – modest growth that will be offset by decline in Europe and stagnation in North America. Both countries  have a long history of exaggerated claims about nuclear growth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.