Hi folks, the purpose of this update is to provide information on
developments since the World Heritage Committee meeting of July 12; in
particular:
1) ERA's 1998/1999 financial year full-year summary
2) The text of the final World Heritage Committee decision (for those who
haven't seen it from other sources)
3) The text of an ABC broadcast featuring Bob Collins. (In the original
interview Collins was followed by Karen Oxnam - Director, Jabiluka uranium
mine - and segments of the interview with her follow).
Where all this comes together is in (a) the increasing level of admission
by ERA that the Jabiluka project depends on permission from the Mirrar to
use the Ranger processing mill; and (b) widening acceptance among
'significant others' in the Kakadu region that this is not going to be the
case.
********************************************************************************
1) ERA'S 1998-1999 FINANCIAL YEAR FULL-YEAR SUMMARY
ERA's summary, released as a media release and stock-exchange announcement,
notes the following (all points reproduced, just in case we should be
accused of attempting to attempting to skew the news our way) (though
comments are adde on occasion):
* Earnings before interest and tax decreased by 6% to $45.8m
* Profit after tax decreased by 18% to $21.9m
(just as a matter of context: as a proportion of North Ltd's overall
income, ERA dropped from 18% in the 1996-97 annual report to 9% in that of
1997-8. That represents a more than 50% drop in income for that year.
While we might have preferred a similar drop this year, it was not to be.
But 6% is bringing the drop up to around the 60% mark.)
* An 11.0 cent fully-franked final dividend declared, maintaining a total
dividend of 14.0 cents
* Sales revenue decreased by 14%
* Sales of Ranger material - 4006 tonnes. (This is a decrease from 4635t
in 1998)
* Four new sales contracts signed
* Ranger production is up, to 4380t (from 4162t in 1998) (But it is being
dropped to 4000 from 1.1.99)
* Mining of Ranger #3 ahead of schedule
* "The first stage of the Jabiluka mine was developed under budget and
ahead of schedule".
The drop in sales is due to "...several existing customers exercizing their
option to reduce their sales for the year". (p2). Wouldn't it be nice to
know which ones and why?
The four new sales contracts apparently mean that "...contracts (are) now
in place for over 25 000 tonnes of production in the next ten years."
What? Contracts for only 2 500 tonnes per year, when they're at looking at
producing 4000 tonnes a year from Ranger AND wanting to phase Jabiluka in
in 18 months? Surely North shareholders need to point out yet again that
the future simply is simply not in the Jabiluka mine, especially since
uranium prices have actually dropped since last year (from US$11.23 per
pound last year to $10.07 this year).
The above is kind of academic. The Sydney Morning Herald (20.8.99, 24)
says "Stockbroking analysts say Jabiluka would be uneconomic if ERA was
forced to construct a stand-alone plant, given present low uranium prices."
Which, of course, it will be.
Curiously, in view of the agreement ERA is supposed to have made at the
World Heritage meeting, no mention is made of the 18-month break. The
closest it gets is: "A six week core sampling process will be completed in
August 1999 after which the development will enter a six to twelve month
design phase encompassing additional mine planning and further
environmental, safety and cultural studies."
Apparently, ERA's share price rose by 7 cents to $1.90 because of this
announcement. This rise takes it to about 20 cents less per share than it
was when the price allegedly 'exploded' to about $2.10 immediately after
the World Heritage decision. Seems the share-buying public isn't
convinced. After all, neither price compares well with the $4.60 ERA
shares worth up to the early part of last year.
Finally, "(o)n 12 July 1999 the World Heritage Committee, by a majority of
20 to one, confirmed that the Jabiluka Project would not cause Kakadu's
world heritage status to be placed in danger."
Below is the full text of the decision. If you can find anything in there
to suggest the Committee confirms any such thing, please let us know.
While this is certainly the line the government and ERA have touted in the
press, the reality is somewhat different.
*******************************************************************************
2) DECISION OF THE THIRD EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
12 JULY 1999 Kakadu National Park (Australia)
1. The Committee,
(a) Emphasizes the importance of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the 1972
UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In particular the Committee emphasizes
Article 6 (1) which states that:
Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of
the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage (...) is
situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national
legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such
heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of
the international community as a whole to co- operate.
(b) Recalls that the twenty-second session of the World Heritage
Committee in Kyoto (1998) expressed "grave concern" over the ascertained and
potential dangers to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of
Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal for uranium mining and milling
at Jabiluka;
(c) Notes that the deliberations of the twenty-third session of the
Bureau and of the third extraordinary session of the Committee demand the
continuous serious consideration of the conditions at Kakadu National Park
by the Committee with reference to Section III, in particular Paragraph 86
of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage;
(d) Expresses its deep regret that the voluntary suspension of
construction of the mine decline at Jabiluka until the twenty-third session
of the Committee (requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee)
has not taken place;
(e) Is gravely concerned about the serious impacts to the living
cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and
mill uranium at Jabiluka. The Committee is of the opinion that confidence
and trust building through dialogue are crucial for there to be any
resolution of issues relating to the proposal to mine and mill uranium at
Jabiluka. In particular, a more substantial and continuous dialogue needs
to be established between the Australian Government and the traditional
owners of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease, the Mirrar Aboriginal people;
(f) Is concerned about the lack of progress with the preparation of a
cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka;
(g) Continues to have significant reservations concerning the scientific
uncertainties relating to mining and milling at Jabiluka.
2. The Committee,
(a) Recognizes, with appreciation, that the Australian Government,
Australian Supervising Scientist, advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM)
and independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International
Council of Science (ICSU) have provided the reports requested by the
twenty-second session of the Committee (Kyoto, 1998);
(b) Acknowledges that there are indications that a new dialogue between
the Mirrar Aboriginal people and the Australian Government has begun in
relation to issues concerning the Jabiluka uranium mine and mill. The
Committee considers this to be an essential step in finding a constructive
solution to the issues raised by the UNESCO mission to Kakadu National Park
and encourages the Australian Government to intensify their efforts in this
regard and pursue with vigor the deepening of its dialogue with the Mirrar
Aboriginal people;
(c) Notes that the Australian Government has stated (in document
WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G entitled "Protecting Kakadu National Park" submitted
by the Australian Government) that "full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka
would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at
the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production
simultaneously". The Committee further notes that the Minister for
Environment and Heritage has stated that there shall be no parallel
commercial scale operation of the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines located
in enclaves surrounded by, but not included, in Kakadu National Park. The
Committee considers that it is the clear responsibility of the Australian
Government to regulate the activities of a private company, such as Energy
Resources of Australia, Inc, in relation to the proposed mining and milling
activities at Jabiluka to ensure the protection of the World Heritage values
of Kakadu National Park;
(d) Notes that the Australian Supervising Scientist (ASS) has assessed
the report of the independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the
International Council of Science (ICSU) and seeks a dialogue with the ISP to
resolve outstanding questions relating to scientific issues concerning
mining and milling at Jabiluka.
3. With consideration of 1 and 2 above, the Committee will remain vigilant
in reviewing and assessing the progress made by the Australian Government.
To this end the Committee requests that the Australian Government submit a
progress report on the following issues by 15 April 2000 for examination by
the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee:
(a) progress made with cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease
and the Boyweg-Almudj site and its boundaries and the completion of the
cultural heritage management plan with the necessary co-operation of the
Mirrar, and appropriate involvement of other stakeholders and ICOMOS and
ICCROM;
(b) progress in the implementation, in response to the Kakadu Region
Social Impact Study (KRSIS), of a comprehensive package of social and
welfare benefits, together with the Northern Territory Government, for the
benefit of the Aboriginal communities of Kakadu (including the Mirrar);
(c) more precise details of the output and scale of any parallel
activities at the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines as well as on any legal
provisions taken in that respect.
4. To resolve the remaining scientific issues, such as those raised in the
ISP report, the Committee asks ICSU to continue the work of the ISP (with
the addition of any additional members) to assess, in co-operation with the
Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist's response to the
ISP report. The report of the ISP's assessment should be submitted to the
World Heritage Centre by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000.
****************************************************************************
3) ABC news Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:58 AEST LOCAL NEWS : Northern Territory
Jabiluka 'just won't happen':
Former Northern Territory senator and federal minister Bob Collins has
serious doubts that the Jabiluka uranium mine will go ahead
Mr Collins is the chair of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Committee, a
group charged with developing and implementing a plan for the future of the
area after mining in the region is finished.
He says if the miner, Energy Resources of Australia, cannot mill the ore at
the existing Ranger mill, there is no way the company will build a new mill
at Jabiluka.
"All of the assumptions I'm making in of the work I'm doing out there is
that's not going to happen," Mr Collins said.
"I think it's a highly economically [and] I think it's beyond argument
environmentally. I just don't think it's going to happen.
"So what that means is this; if they do not have a successful negotiation
on what they call the RMA, the Ranger milling alternative with the road
just taking the ore over, in my view Jabiluka just won't happen,"
SOME MORE DETAIL FROM THE ORIGINAL INTERVIEW (8DDD 13-8-99, 0830) (for
those unfamiliar with the convention, dots "...." indicate that material
has been edited out for the purposes of this update)
INTERVIEWER (Fred McHugh): ...And as I understand it at the moment there's
a real sense of uncertainty in the region.
COLLINS: Yes, there is, Fred, and that's across the whole community,
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.... But I think the most significant one was
the agreement for 18 months and the agreement delay and the agreement by
the company to phase out Ranger before they phase out Ranger before they
phased in Jabiluka if Jabiluka goes ahead at all....
COLLINS: ....I'll get right down to the bottom line. The company has been
saying consistently as they have a right to say that, if they're forced to
do so, they will construct milling facilities and tailings dams and
everything else up at Jabiluka instead of proceeding to use the
facilities...
INTERVIEWER: Clearly not their preferred option.
COLLINS: Way, way from it. They've in fact used that word, 'forced'; if
they're forced to do it. They've got a legal right to do that. But all of
the assumptions I am making in respect of the work I'm doing out there is
that it's not going to happen. I think it's a highly arguable proposition
economically. I think it's beyond argument , environmentally. I just
don't think it's going to happen.
So what that means is that: If they do not have a successful negotiation on
what they call the RMA, the Ranger milling alternative, for the road just
taking the road over, in my view Jabiluka simply won't happen....
....
COLLINS: However the company of course - and again this is my assumption
and I think it's correct - I don't think the company if they did not a
successful negotiation with Jabiluka would frankly want to hang around
(until 2005/6 when Ranger is supposed to close). The company has got
management operations already planned that would allow them to, in fact,
cease mining and milling in three years from now.
THE INTERVIEWER WENT ON TO INTERVIEW KAREN OXNAM, ERA'S 'DIRECTOR, JABILUKA
URANIUM MINE':
INTERVIEWER: "...if you don't get the OK for the Ranger milling option,
...Jabiluka itself looks pretty shaky, doesn't it?
OXNAM: We're actually confident that we can...
INTERVIEWER: Sure, i understand you...
OXNAM: ...that the consequesnces of not proceeding with at Jabiluka are
very serious. And we do need approval to proceed with Jabiluka ....
So. ERA finally admits that they require Mirrar permission to use the
Ranger mill. Collins, who in the past has vocally supported the Jabiluka
project and who we can assume has reasonably good sources, says ERA have a
contingency plan for getting out of Jabiru in three years, and that he (as
Chair of the KRSIS Implementation Committee) is planning on the basis of
ERA doing just that when they finally accept that the Mirrar are NOT going
to drop their veto on use of the Ranger mill for Jabiluka uranium.
JUST IN CASE YOU WANTED A REASON TO CELEBRATE
For those of you who live in the benighted and frozen south, you may feel
this good reason to take a blowtorch to your chilblains and ... I don't
know, have a party or whatever you do down there.
There are two other good reasons to make it a fundraising party -
September 1 marks a year since Yvonne Margarula and others were convicted
as a result of their arrest for trespass on Mirrar land on May 19 last year.
In addition, September 4 marks 5 years since Yvonne Margarula initiated
this campaign by insisting that the Gagudju Association was failing to
represent the interests of the Mirrar and forcing the formation of the
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation.
Karl-Erik Paasonen
Admin Assistant
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation
Contact details:
Phone: Within Australia: (08) 8979 2200; international: +61 - 8 - 8979
2200; Fax: Within Australia: (08) 8979 2299; international:
+61 - 8 - 8979 2299
Postal address: PO Box 245 Jabiru,
Northern Territory
AUSTRALIA 0886.
We have this amazing web-site, which you'd be CRAZY not to have a look at:
http://www.mirrar.net
...........................................................................
Stop Jabiluka:
"We will fight to protect our country and that is a fact of life"
Yvonne Margarula.
Ba-ngurdmeninj Djabulukku! Yun ngurri-djalgarung Boiwek gun-ngukbim!
"Stop Jabiluka! Don't the dig the life out of the Knob-Tailed Gecko Dreaming!"
...........................................................................
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
