Mega-everything: the world’s biggest open cut mine

Knowledge of the expansion factor will be particularly important in enabling the Native Vegetation Council to accurately determine the amount of vegetation to be cleared and the SEB and/or financial outlay that will be required of BHP Billiton.

Tailings storage facility

Fauna mortalities associated with exposure to the acid liquor of the existing tailings dam were 895 in 2005-06, 311 in 2006-07 and 282 in 2007-08. As well as birds, seven species of mammal and eight species of reptiles have been killed.

BHP Billiton recognises these figures underplay the impact because of the removal of carcasses by scavengers or the sinking of dead birds before detection. They state “If the habitat is modified or increases in area, the number and diversity of species increases accordingly”. So still more birds and animals will be attracted to the world’s largest tailings dam, and still more of them will die as a consequence.

Undertakings are given to put netting in place to deter birds and for further research into methodologies to reduce the number of fauna deaths. The EIS acknowledges that methodologies used to date have had varied success. Despite this, the EIS appears to be leading the public to accept an increase in deaths as being an inevitable cost we will have to bear.

Aboriginal people

BHP Billiton asserts they have reached amicable agreements with the traditional owners of the land. The evidence does not support this.

In 2005 the proponents reached an agreement with Kokatha, Barngala and Kuyani groups to discuss the implications of the project. Questions arise as to why it was only these three groups, and how they established the legitimacy of those who represented the Kokatha people. There is certainly dispute within the Kokatha about this.

And while the EIS acknowledges the Native Title claims of the Arabunna, Dieri, Adnyamathanha, Yandruwandha/Yawarrawarrka and the Nukunu peoples on land through which infrastructure corridors might run, no mention is made of negotiations with them.

The EIS contemplates that the post closure use of land “would be determined by consulting with the relevant stakeholders, including the local government authority, the Roxby Downs and Andamooka communities and the South Australian government”. It speaks volumes that the traditional owners of the land are not specifically mentioned in this list as stakeholders!

But just as happened at Maralinga the traditional owners will probably be left to pick up the pieces.

Conclusion

Although more than four years in the preparation this EIS begs many questions. With government and opposition parties already supporting the expansion, from a legislative perspective this project is virtually unstoppable. But the South Australian and Federal Governments need to thoroughly examine the document, and impose much tougher conditions before they give it the stamp of approval.