World’s biggest open pit operation could be a reality – Part Two — Australian Journal of Mining

World’s biggest open pit operation could be a reality – Part Two AJM By Paula Wallace Jun 11, 2009“……………….The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has criticised the proposal on the basis that BHP’s Draft EIS has not “addressed feasible alternatives as project options to provide a basis for informed public consideration and input and to facilitate Government decisions and conditions in the public interest.”
The ACF’s David Noonan said the Draft EIS should include options where Olympic Dam can trade as a copper venture with all radioactive materials retained on-site; that all copper concentrate should be processed on-site; that mine tailings be disposed of in the pit for 10,000 years as per the Ranger mine agreement; that the plan include use of renewable energy; and that different sites are offered for location of a desalination plant.
Noonan also said that BHP has applied for State Government approval to extract up to one million tonnes of copper product a year, even though the EIS only examines an expansion of up to 750,000 tonnes a year.
“Radioactive waste from the mine, damage to the marine environment from desalination and greenhouse pollution from additional energy demand may all be one third worse than envisaged by the company’s EIS.
“BHP plans to line only 15 per cent of the proposed 44 square kilometre tailings facility that will be up to 65 metres high…This could be leaking 8 million litres of liquid waste by 2020,” he said…………………………The ACF’s concerns around the miner’s plan to send uranium containing copper concentrate overseas are numerous.
“The uranium quarry plan would make BHP and South Australia complicit in selling uranium to nuclear weapons states and in unresolved radioactive waste management problems overseas and at the mine site.”
This raises questions generally about the scope of a uranium mining company’s responsibilities in the nuclear fuel cycle and its interpretation of corporate sustainability………………………Whilst some would consider it to be part of responsible management of uranium and all its by-products, The Uranium Stewardship Principles also don’t make it clear whether mining companies should be involved in the disposal of downstream radioactive waste……………………Whilst mining companies to date have not been expected to take responsibility for the downstream emissions or impacts of the deployment of their products, the recent public concern over coal powered energy may prompt a re-thinking of this issue in the context of the mining industry’s ‘social licence to operate’.