Rich deposit brings Australians rich responsibilities

Australians were recently warned that in having one of the world’s richest deposits of uranium meant we also had equally rich responsibilities.

Prof Robin Batterham

Our former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, now with the University of Melbourne’s Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, reminded us of that challenge while summarizing a panel discussion entitled: “Fukushima: The Facts and the Fallout”.

The Japanese nuclear power plant was irreparably damaged in Japan’s earthquake and tsunami early in March this year and late last week the situation at Fukushima was upgraded to a level equivalent with damage at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986.

With about 30 per cent of the world’s uranium, Prof Batterham said all Australians needed to take an active interest into whom the ore was sold and, subsequently, the intended use of that same uranium.
Although the uranium, coal, gas, or what little there is of oil, leaves our shores it is still, in a disconnected but serious sense, Prof Batterham said, our responsibility.
The ultimate use, or misuse, of that uranium, coal or gas is critical as the residues of its application can come back through our water, food supplies or the atmosphere to damage our health.
Of course there is the further complication in that whatever finite resource it is we are exploiting, we are using another irreplaceable resource to recover it.
Considered in isolation, uranium power may well be emission free, but the reality is that it is not as massive amounts of fossil fuel is needed to mine, transport and finally safely store the waste and, importantly, build the power station itself.
Gross energy costs, and the resultant damage to our atmosphere, might be less than coal, but the costs are more than society should be prepared to pay.
Arguments that liquefied natural gas (LNG) should be excluded from Australia’s proposed carbon tax have been raised by the Australian-owned oil and gas producer, Woodside.
The company’s claims LNG will help deliver a "better world" and so should be excluded from the carbon tax.
At 16, I worked in Bass Strait with an oil survey company and fellow who understood the implications of our work urged me to buy shares in the then fledgling Woodside company.
Knowing nothing of the share market, I didn’t, but I should have taken his advice as those shares that then cost about five cents are closing on $50.
With our blessing, Woodside have plundered our resources for decades and it is time they paid some tax.
True, gas is less polluting, but recovering and distributing it is energy intensive and in gross terms is a massive contributor to our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.
The broader welfare of our world should not be sacrificed to the short-term profits of one corporation.
(April 13, 2011)