Johnny Flipflop the Indonesian sycophant 1459Wanting to re-write history Yahya The 'Dutch East Indies' was a region under the control of the Dutch East Indies Company, which went bankrupt in 1795. After which the Netherlands government inherited...
Presumably?
It hasn't been mbuttively profitable for US & UK taxpayers, quite the opposite. So why will it be any different here?
Really? What rock have you been hiding under?
Pangea Resources proposes to establish an international, commercial high level nuclear waste dump in the outback of Western Australia. The Pangea dump would run for 40 years and store 20% of the world's nuclear waste.
After this time responsibility would pbutt to the people of Australia and Pangea Resources would no longer monitor the site.
Pangea rears its head again! In September 2005, as a direct result of the uranium mining push in WA, former Pangea boss Charles McCombie, now with ARIUS, restates his support for a Nuke dump in Australia.
Since when was uranium mining excluded from the nuclear industry?
And why lump all of BHP taxes with its uranium mining? Why not add costs of tax breaks & subsidies?
The Australian government has not always supported the uranium industry. It came under intense government scrutiny in the early 1970s and was found unprofitable and potentially damaging to the environment. The Labor government began examining the export earnings of the mining industry and insbreastuted controls thatprevented manipulative pricing arrangements.
A 1974 report ordered by the government showed that the government paid $55 million more in tax concessions and subsidies for mining than it received in royalties. In addition, the Labor government halted operations at the Ranger mine until the Ranger Environmental Inquiry could finish its report.
The Liberal Fraser government came to power in 1975 firmly committed to uranium mining and it reversed many of the regulations imposed during the early 1970s. The Australian Labor Party adopted a policy opposing uranium mining in 1977 but amended it in 1982. At that point the policy was amended to allow the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia to open. Though many believed the Hawke Labor government, which came to power in 1983, was anti-uranium, they soon found that the Prime Minister was an ardent supporter of uranium mining.
Happy birthday Jackferdie Not true. The Union Jack does not include the Southern Cross, as is the case with the...
Note: recent data is not easy to find... If it is so great, then why isn't it all proudly trumpeted rather than avoided?
Roxby uses 15 million litres of water per day. By the year 2000 they expect to be using 33 million litres per day and they have permission to use 42 million litres per day. This water is being given free of charge. There is no resource tax, there are no royalties and there are no water rates. In short the water is considered to have no value and the only incentive to minimize water use is the cost of pumping it and of desalinating a portion. Thanks to free water, a rebate on diesel fuel, SA Government payment of infrastructure costs and subsidies to the Roxby Downs Council South Australians are subsidizing uranium mining and ensuring the viability of a very dangerous industry.
NOTE: We just hosted the Chinese rep during the deal, presumably paid for security, catering and transport etc etc, not to mention the preliminary planning & PR. Or does our Government have Alzheimers about that too?
~ The electricity used to just process ore at Roxby Downs copper and uranium mine contributes over one million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year, enough to earn it the breastle of the largest single emission source, other than for domestic power needs, in South Australia.
The corporate spin produced by the industry glosses over the fact that the Australian public currently provides multi-million dollar subsidies to uranium mining. These subsidies include direct tax breaks and exploration credits as well as indirect subsidies through its free rein to use and pollute our publicly owned natural resources.
Roxby Downs has free access to its daily use of over 30 million litres of water from the Great Artesian Basin. Meanwhile, Ranger uranium mine has yet to be prosecuted for over 120 spills and leaks of radioactive waste that may jeopardise the World Heritage listing of the neighbouring Kakadu National Park.
Energy efficiency activities cost a fraction of additional electricity generation, immediately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and could be implemented without an impact on our overall level of energy service. Through energy efficiency measures, in combination with the use of renewable energy sources and switching from coal-fired power stations to less polluting natural gas and cogeneration installations, we can begin to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in an environmentally friendly manner.
Is nuclear power part of AustraliaÕs global warming solutions? By Professor Ian Lowe AO, ACF President Proponents of uranium mining are again loudly promoting nuclear power as a 'climate friendly' energy option. ACF President Professor Ian Lowe's address to the National Press Club, reproduced below, explains why nuclear is no solution to climate change. Insurers are reluctant to insure the nuclear industry without government guarantees because of the risk of such accidents. The very existence of the nuclear industry is only possible because of significant government subsidies and intervention to underwrite the risk to insurance companies. If the world suffers another Chernobyl, taxpayers, not insurance companies, will foot most of the bill.
More Very Interesting reading:
More Interesting reading:
