Science/Environment The Coming Nuclear Crisis

link roo

Senior List
Nov 2, 2008
188
2
maui
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Interesting point bp. Have to double the wine cellar with a fallout shelter and throw in a garden :thumbsu:
 

Sainteric

Cancelled
Aug 5, 2016
3,738
2,128
AFL Club
St Kilda
It was always of known resources, no one is even looking for it because we can hardly sell what we have. Add thorium and we can power the world for 1000s of years. ITER comes online in 2025 assuming that works (Australia signed up for the technology) we only have to get to mid 2050s and uranium doesn't even matter.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
you can mine uranium out of sea water and drinking water (from desal) economically at ~$200 a pound

we will not run out of uranium anytime soon.......may be in 30,000 years we may have to seek new discoveries
$200/pound ?

source for that claim?
 
$200/pound ?

source for that claim?

This is the technology



It will be used onshore in Australia to clean up the water table in an aboriginal community. the uranium levels are much higher and along with other heavy metals, entering the food chain through tree root systems.this will be done at ~$17-$23/lb.



The only public document I could find was 2006 as $240/lb. the latest being presented from China is $200 which would be a function of progress, FX and cheaper cost base vs Japan. I’ll see if I can find a more recent reference but please find below



It should be noted these are stand alone prices. Where the opportunity is, as per the onshore example above is piggy backing on existing pumps.

In the case of mine dewatering, the pumping cost is a sunk cost and along with higher grade in the water First quartile costs are achieved.

In the case of drinking water, the pumping cost of desal is sunk. So to in the case of dam water in some locations where the water has flowed through sand stone or over granites.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This is the technology



It will be used onshore in Australia to clean up the water table in an aboriginal community. the uranium levels are much higher and along with other heavy metals, entering the food chain through tree root systems.this will be done at ~$17-$23/lb.



The only public document I could find was 2006 as $240/lb. the latest being presented from China is $200 which would be a function of progress, FX and cheaper cost base vs Japan. I’ll see if I can find a more recent reference but please find below



It should be noted these are stand alone prices. Where the opportunity is, as per the onshore example above is piggy backing on existing pumps.

In the case of mine dewatering, the pumping cost is a sunk cost and along with higher grade in the water First quartile costs are achieved.

In the case of drinking water, the pumping cost of desal is sunk. So to in the case of dam water in some locations where the water has flowed through sand stone or over granites.

In any case, current prices for U3O8 are around $25 per pound.
Extraction, Processing, transport and other costs must be less than this price level in order for mining corporations to generate a profit.

Are you aware that Australia is the only OECD country that permits the in-Situ Uranium leaching method of extraction? South Australian environmental laws had to be suspended so that the American mining company General Atomics could use this method which contaminates the ground water/artesian table. General Atomics would not be able to use this method in the USA or any other OECD country because it is banned. Australia violates its own EPA laws by allowing General Atomics to operate at Beverley under the name of Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.

The so called "Australian" mining and energy sectors are about 86% foreign owned - mainly in the hands of US multinational corporations that control about 60%. These foreign corporation pay very little or NO tax in this country and receive about $12 Billion worth of tax payer subsidies and grants each year. The economic benefits for Australia get even worse, because these lucrative mining and energy sectors barely employ 3% of the Total Australian workforce. In fact there are more Australians employed in the Queensland Tourism industry than there are in the entire Australian mining/energy sectors.

It actually costs Australians to operate a mining and energy industry. This was first identified by the incoming Whitlam Government in the early 1970s that carried out a Treasury analysis of the benefits of the Mining sector to the Australian people. It was estimated that in the early 1970s it was costing Australians about $120 million each year just to have a mining industry. The opposition at the time, carried out a similar study using a private economics/finance firm and tried hard to show a positive gain to Australians. It's conclusions were that the cost to Australians for allowing mining in this country was about $30 million each year. Either way, it's a scandal. And it's much worse today than it was in the early 1970s.

Compare Australia's dumb domestic mining policies with that of Norway, a country with a population of about 7 million people. Norway has been taxing it's off shore Oil extraction companies, most of which are foreign corporations, to the tune of 65%+. The Oil revenue has been saved in a National Sovereign Fund that can only be used for projects of national interest or in times of emergency or catastrophe.

And how large is little Norway's Sovereign Fund compared to other countries in the world?

Only the largest in the world at over $1 trillion.

Sovereign fund.jpg


It's very difficult to think of a sillier nation that lacks such self confidence, a sense of identity and responsibility for its future than Australia.
 
In any case, current prices for U3O8 are around $25 per pound.
Extraction, Processing, transport and other costs must be less than this price level in order for mining corporations to generate a profit.

No. The spot price is irrelevant to mining.

The spot price of uranium is $25 which is a traders price. Miners sell into long term contracts with the last one being $45. I'm predicting we will see $60 contracts being delivered by September 2019.



the reason for the price decrease in spot price and long term contract price, was initially Fukushima but the world is producing more nuclear power now than ever before. The technology efficiencies mean we are burning way less uranium for the same amount of power.

we are also under feeding which means more u-235 from the enrichment process

we will also see a cap at $65 as a long term average a breeder reactors become economic at circa this price. It is worthwhile seeing breeders being built over gen3.5, as they burn u238 and thus significantly reduce the amount of waste (which is small already - 5cm3 for an individuals entire lifetimes energy needs).


Are you aware that Australia is the only OECD country that permits the in-Situ Uranium leaching method of extraction? South Australian environmental laws had to be suspended so that the American mining company General Atomics could use this method which contaminates the ground water/artesian table. General Atomics would not be able to use this method in the USA or any other OECD country because it is banned. Australia violates its own EPA laws by allowing General Atomics to operate at Beverley under the name of Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.

Incorrect

Almost half of the world's uranium comes from Insitu Leach. Kazakh, US, Australia, China, Russia, Namibia all use it. It's also used for other metals such as copper.

Uranium is extremely mobile as can be leached and is leached with water. As the uranium bearing water hits salty water or better still, carbonaceous material like river beds, coal, sandstone it simply drops out and forms deposits. To liberate you can use weak acid and through injection wells and pumping, simply extract. The acid levels drop back to normal levels quickly due to lime.

10,000 year water studies have to be submitted as part of the EPA process.

Lastly, ISL does not work unless there is a boundary at both the top and the bottom (ie a clay layer or other impermeable layer). Otherwise you can't inject and pump efficiently and effectively.

The so called "Australian" mining and energy sectors are about 86% foreign owned - mainly in the hands of US multinational corporations that control about 60%. These foreign corporation pay very little or NO tax in this country and receive about $12 Billion worth of tax payer subsidies and grants each year. The economic benefits for Australia get even worse, because these lucrative mining and energy sectors barely employ 3% of the Total Australian workforce. In fact there are more Australians employed in the Queensland Tourism industry than there are in the entire Australian mining/energy sectors.

There is no point discussing the subsidies, given your incorrect assertions re subsidies.

What I will highlight is Australian and Canadian management teams control 2/3s of the world's mining. Yes they use foreign capital but this creates huge opportunities for Australian mining, legal and other professional services.

Take BHP for example which would have foreign ownership in proportion to Australian vs foreign assets. So overall pretty balanced.

Lastly, the EU banking arm is cornerstoning an Australian investment bank to invest in mining to create regional security and security of supply. They have done this as they know Australia is a centre of excellence for mining and mining finance. The Austrlian investment bank only backs Australian management teams, so this translates to more Australian jobs on foreign assets.

It actually costs Australians to operate a mining and energy industry. This was first identified by the incoming Whitlam Government in the early 1970s that carried out a Treasury analysis of the benefits of the Mining sector to the Australian people. It was estimated that in the early 1970s it was costing Australians about $120 million each year just to have a mining industry. The opposition at the time, carried out a similar study using a private economics/finance firm and tried hard to show a positive gain to Australians. It's conclusions were that the cost to Australians for allowing mining in this country was about $30 million each year. Either way, it's a scandal. And it's much worse today than it was in the early 1970s.

WHAT DID THE ROMANS EVER DO FOR US!

You're quoting a loon who wanted to "buy back the farm"? The 1960s and 70s had a post war mentality and a steel policy.

Perhaps looking at a more recent analysis https://www.australianmining.com.au...unts-15-per-cent-australias-economy-deloitte/

Compare Australia's dumb domestic mining policies with that of Norway, a country with a population of about 7 million people. Norway has been taxing it's off shore Oil extraction companies, most of which are foreign corporations, to the tune of 65%+. The Oil revenue has been saved in a National Sovereign Fund that can only be used for projects of national interest or in times of emergency or catastrophe.

And how large is little Norway's Sovereign Fund compared to other countries in the world?

Only the largest in the world at over $1 trillion.

View attachment 710389

It's very difficult to think of a sillier nation that lacks such self confidence, a sense of identity and responsibility for its future than Australia.

Again you have it so wrong.

Norway has done a great job of creating a fund from resources and doing a great job at trying to diversify that fund away from resource exposure. However they are living a life, as a government that they can't afford. The risk is a decline is production rates and the country is in deep trouble without reform.

Meanwhile Australia has done an equally as good a job. We have one of the largest savings being $2.2 trillion in superannuation. By the measure of median wealth per adult we are almost 2.5x wealthier than or Norwegian friends.

Both have been blessed by great resource wealth and both have done remarkably well with that opportunity. We are 2.5x wealthier than our Norwegian friends and we have an international reputation for excellence, allowing us to exploit our own and foreign assets. Meaning we have a far more diversified platform than O&G alone.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
No. The spot price is irrelevant to mining.

The spot price of uranium is $25 which is a traders price. Miners sell into long term contracts with the last one being $45. I'm predicting we will see $60 contracts being delivered by September 2019.



the reason for the price decrease in spot price and long term contract price, was initially Fukushima but the world is producing more nuclear power now than ever before. The technology efficiencies mean we are burning way less uranium for the same amount of power.

we are also under feeding which means more u-235 from the enrichment process

we will also see a cap at $65 as a long term average a breeder reactors become economic at circa this price. It is worthwhile seeing breeders being built over gen3.5, as they burn u238 and thus significantly reduce the amount of waste (which is small already - 5cm3 for an individuals entire lifetimes energy needs).




Incorrect

Almost half of the world's uranium comes from Insitu Leach. Kazakh, US, Australia, China, Russia, Namibia all use it. It's also used for other metals such as copper.

Uranium is extremely mobile as can be leached and is leached with water. As the uranium bearing water hits salty water or better still, carbonaceous material like river beds, coal, sandstone it simply drops out and forms deposits. To liberate you can use weak acid and through injection wells and pumping, simply extract. The acid levels drop back to normal levels quickly due to lime.

10,000 year water studies have to be submitted as part of the EPA process.

Lastly, ISL does not work unless there is a boundary at both the top and the bottom (ie a clay layer or other impermeable layer). Otherwise you can't inject and pump efficiently and effectively.



There is no point discussing the subsidies, given your incorrect assertions re subsidies.

What I will highlight is Australian and Canadian management teams control 2/3s of the world's mining. Yes they use foreign capital but this creates huge opportunities for Australian mining, legal and other professional services.

Take BHP for example which would have foreign ownership in proportion to Australian vs foreign assets. So overall pretty balanced.

Lastly, the EU banking arm is cornerstoning an Australian investment bank to invest in mining to create regional security and security of supply. They have done this as they know Australia is a centre of excellence for mining and mining finance. The Austrlian investment bank only backs Australian management teams, so this translates to more Australian jobs on foreign assets.



WHAT DID THE ROMANS EVER DO FOR US!

You're quoting a loon who wanted to "buy back the farm"? The 1960s and 70s had a post war mentality and a steel policy.

Perhaps looking at a more recent analysis https://www.australianmining.com.au...unts-15-per-cent-australias-economy-deloitte/



Again you have it so wrong.

Norway has done a great job of creating a fund from resources and doing a great job at trying to diversify that fund away from resource exposure. However they are living a life, as a government that they can't afford. The risk is a decline is production rates and the country is in deep trouble without reform.

Meanwhile Australia has done an equally as good a job. We have one of the largest savings being $2.2 trillion in superannuation. By the measure of median wealth per adult we are almost 2.5x wealthier than or Norwegian friends.

Both have been blessed by great resource wealth and both have done remarkably well with that opportunity. We are 2.5x wealthier than our Norwegian friends and we have an international reputation for excellence, allowing us to exploit our own and foreign assets. Meaning we have a far more diversified platform than O&G alone.

You're welcome to take your mining business model to investors alerting them to the fact that the cost of extracting the U3O8 will be $200+ per pound whilst the selling price on the global market will be $45 or if they're lucky $65 per pound.

On the matter of the Uranium Mine at Beverley (SA) operated by US corp General Atomics:

Acid in-situ leach Uranium Mining has never been approved in any other OECD country.

The Beverley Uranium Mine process not only uses this method of extraction due to suspension of Australian EPA laws, but it also discharges all of its radioactive mine waste directly to ground water without any rehabilitation or legal liability. And the US corporation General Atomics is allowed to do this because it is given an exemption by the South Australian EPA. Again you’re more than welcome to list the countries in the OECD that permit this sort of Mining Activity.

Did you note the highlighted words Legal liability? What's your view on a foreign Corporation being given immunity for any legal or public liability their mining practices cause in Australia - such as dumping nuclear/radioactive waste from their acid in-situ leach process directly into ground water?

Beverley Mine SA_1.JPG
 
You're welcome to take your mining business model to investors alerting them to the fact that the cost of extracting the U3O8 will be $200+ per pound whilst the selling price on the global market will be $45 or if they're lucky $65 per pound.

The reason to highlight that uranium can be mined from sea water, especially drinking water from desal, isn't to encourage investors. It is to highlight that we have 100s of thousands of years of uranium mine life.

An increase of a three or four fold in uranium price would increase nuclear power by 5-15%, depending on under feeding, for current reactors and less than 1% for Gen IV.

Essentially nuclear power in insensitive to operating fuel cost inputs.

On the matter of the Uranium Mine at Beverley (SA) operated by US corp General Atomics:

Did you know the Mr Burns character from the Simpsons is based of the owner of General Atomics?

They also make the unmanned drones and other military applications. A fascinating guy, who is unlikely to live too much longer.


Acid in-situ leach Uranium Mining has never been approved in any other OECD country.

Now your changing the parameters.

Insitu leach as highlighted in my previous post accounts for almost 50% of uranium and is done so globally for uranium and other metals. Now you add "acid" which is laughable, as if it is some environmental conspiracy. Australia and Kazakhstan's geology is more suited to acid.

Peninsula Energy's US deposit started with acid (IN AN OECD COUNTRY) but realised like their neighbours that using a base rather than acid was more appropriate.

SO YES, ACID HAS BEEN USED IN ANOTHER OECD COUNTRY but the debate about base vs acid is dependent on the host rock. Where are you getting your information from? They are clearly misleading you!



The Beverley Uranium Mine process not only uses this method of extraction due to suspension of Australian EPA laws, but it also discharges all of its radioactive mine waste directly to ground water without any rehabilitation or legal liability. And the US corporation General Atomics is allowed to do this because it is given an exemption by the South Australian EPA. Again you’re more than welcome to list the countries in the OECD that permit this sort of Mining Activity.

Discharges all of its radioactive waste? You mean uranium which hasn't been absorbed onto resins......the same uranium you can eat safely from a radioactive point of view but not advised as it's a heavy metal?


Did you note the highlighted words Legal liability? What's your view on a foreign Corporation being given immunity for any legal or public liability their mining practices cause in Australia - such as dumping nuclear/radioactive waste from their acid in-situ leach process directly into ground water?

View attachment 710443

Firstly environmental bonds. Secondly what nuclear radio active waste are you talking about?

They are removing uranium from the land which is a very weak and slow alpha emitter. It's safer than the smoke detector that you have at home. In the absence of removing the uranium, it would decay forming lead and bismuth which is a gamma emitter. Uranium, lead and bismuth all currently enter the food cycle from tree roots and cattle drinking water.

So we have established removing the uranium from the ground, removes the future risk of uranium, lead and business entering the food cycle. Even if it wasn't mined, uranium is safe to consume from a radioactive perspective but not advised due to being a heavy metal. We have also established that acid and base solutions are safe to use insitu as they are weak solutions and nutralised by the host rock.

10,000 year water studies are required and international companies are just as liable as local entities and put forward environmental bonds.




Do you just have a natural dislike for dirty foreigners? What else does the hate group, providing your source information spruik? Do they wear swash sticker or wave a red flag (co-incidentally they both hated jews) and do they hate jews?
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Did you know the Mr Burns character from the Simpsons is based of the owner of General Atomics?

Not surprised......good one.:D

(Australia controlling its mineral and energy resources is common sense dont you think? It has nothing to do with hatred or xenophobia. In the end, the mess left behind will need to be fixed up and paid for by Australians, so the bulk of the benefits from these lucrative but transient mining and energy sectors should remain in Australia. A bit like what the Norwegian people like to do. Plan responsibly, maturely and intelligently for the future or be left behind in its ruins)
 
Not surprised......good one.:D

(Australia controlling its mineral and energy resources is common sense dont you think? It has nothing to do with hatred or xenophobia. In the end, the mess left behind will need to be fixed up and paid for by Australians, so the bulk of the benefits from these lucrative but transient mining and energy sectors should remain in Australia. A bit like what the Norwegian people like to do. Plan responsibly, maturely and intelligently for the future or be left behind in its ruins)

The Mr Burns/ Neal Blue reference is real. Neal is notorious for being tight. His brother is far more "normal" and Neal's wife is the ultimate gold digger who will shaft Neal's kids.


I don't believe anyone has a birth right to owning the mineral rights of the earth. Otherwise, one also has to believe that if China invades and conquers Australia, they become legitimate owners.

The Australian government have a responsibility to make sure mining is done in a responsible way. Both to ensure it's extraction is done to benefit economically (locals, the state and federal in that order) and environmentally sound. No doubt we can all point to examples in the past that, that has not been achieved but we are getting better and better at it.

We will also see a rise in the number of part aboriginal owned, rather than just royalties via land access agreements. Which is a good thing as it requires management skills and jobs than just "sit down money".

I think you'd be surprised how good Australia is in mining and its legal framework. Most countries adopting a mining code, adopt Australia's model rather than Norway's. Both are good but Australia's is actually better! Where Australia gets knocked by some quarters, is it isn't as socialist as Norway.

Both Norway and Australia are leading nations in the world and it's hard to debate which is better, as they are both examples of how nations should be run (legal, economic, education, health etc etc). I'd love to have a more socialist approach to running a nation, especially if it came with greater responsibilities to particiapte (driven by conservative cultures like Norway rather than law). However, I'd also prefer to retain a 2.5x net wealth than Norway. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it.............both are wonderful achievements.



In regards to foreign ownership, Australia owns or controls far more mining opportunities globally than the other way around. So we'd be at a net negative if we enforced a no foreign ownership concept. We need to keep an eye on rare earths, tungsten and other strategic minerals as they are vital in terms of the balance of military power.

We also need to be careful in regards to collecting appropriate taxes be it corporate, wages, royalties and rates for our mining. Which raises the old mining tax debate which would have "stolen" our Australian owned mining assets and handed them to foreign companies.......this is how not to manage our assets wisely.

Mining will always be an emotive subject, as it means different things to different people. But just like having Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi, Chrysler and Toyota owning our locally based car manufacturers...............there was still a significant benefit to Australia. The only difference between mining and manufacturing, was our Australian mining management teams went on to conquer the world. Where in car manufacturing, US and Japanese teams conquered the world.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The Mr Burns/ Neal Blue reference is real. Neal is notorious for being tight. His brother is far more "normal" and Neal's wife is the ultimate gold digger who will shaft Neal's kids.


I don't believe anyone has a birth right to owning the mineral rights of the earth. Otherwise, one also has to believe that if China invades and conquers Australia, they become legitimate owners.

The Australian government have a responsibility to make sure mining is done in a responsible way. Both to ensure it's extraction is done to benefit economically (locals, the state and federal in that order) and environmentally sound. No doubt we can all point to examples in the past that, that has not been achieved but we are getting better and better at it.

We will also see a rise in the number of part aboriginal owned, rather than just royalties via land access agreements. Which is a good thing as it requires management skills and jobs than just "sit down money".

I think you'd be surprised how good Australia is in mining and its legal framework. Most countries adopting a mining code, adopt Australia's model rather than Norway's. Both are good but Australia's is actually better! Where Australia gets knocked by some quarters, is it isn't as socialist as Norway.

Both Norway and Australia are leading nations in the world and it's hard to debate which is better, as they are both examples of how nations should be run (legal, economic, education, health etc etc). I'd love to have a more socialist approach to running a nation, especially if it came with greater responsibilities to particiapte (driven by conservative cultures like Norway rather than law). However, I'd also prefer to retain a 2.5x net wealth than Norway. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it.............both are wonderful achievements.



In regards to foreign ownership, Australia owns or controls far more mining opportunities globally than the other way around. So we'd be at a net negative if we enforced a no foreign ownership concept. We need to keep an eye on rare earths, tungsten and other strategic minerals as they are vital in terms of the balance of military power.

We also need to be careful in regards to collecting appropriate taxes be it corporate, wages, royalties and rates for our mining. Which raises the old mining tax debate which would have "stolen" our Australian owned mining assets and handed them to foreign companies.......this is how not to manage our assets wisely.

Mining will always be an emotive subject, as it means different things to different people. But just like having Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi, Chrysler and Toyota owning our locally based car manufacturers...............there was still a significant benefit to Australia. The only difference between mining and manufacturing, was our Australian mining management teams went on to conquer the world. Where in car manufacturing, US and Japanese teams conquered the world.

Australia was invaded in 1788 and the illegal lease was taken over by the USA in the post WW2 era.

Little NZ is more sovereign and independent than Australia.

Australia is the only country to have joined the USA in every one of its imperial wars since about WW1. Even England hasn’t achieved that feat.

I’m afraid Australia’s fate has been coupled to Washington for many decades and our current head of State Donald Trump will only reinforce that master-slave relationship.

Pity, Australia showed so much promise - even as a model the world could look up to. But as we know nobody looks up to puppets.....ya can see the strings
 
Australia was invaded in 1788 and the illegal lease was taken over by the USA in the post WW2 era.

Little NZ is more sovereign and independent than Australia.

Australia is the only country to have joined the USA in every one of its imperial wars since about WW1. Even England hasn’t achieved that feat.

I’m afraid Australia’s fate has been coupled to Washington for many decades and our current head of State Donald Trump will only reinforce that master-slave relationship.

Pity, Australia showed so much promise - even as a model the world could look up to. But as we know nobody looks up to puppets.....ya can see the strings

no doubt re 1788

We went step right and half a step wrong with Mabo

Hopefully we can take a full step forward with a treaty that cover property loss of all lands, including land that aborigines no longer have a continuous connection with due to displacement.

We should also remove the concept of clans/ countries and treat all indigenous people equally. I say this as, no white person who owns the land, has the rights to minerals so nor should a clan of indigenous. Rather than depriving the indigenous, I suggest all indigenous should receive the benefit whether they stayed connected to the land or left to pursue better opportunities.

People should not be punished because they left the land for education, employment, health etc for themselves or to provide this for their elders or kids.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
no doubt re 1788

We went step right and half a step wrong with Mabo

Hopefully we can take a full step forward with a treaty that cover property loss of all lands, including land that aborigines no longer have a continuous connection with due to displacement.

We should also remove the concept of clans/ countries and treat all indigenous people equally. I say this as, no white person who owns the land, has the rights to minerals so nor should a clan of indigenous. Rather than depriving the indigenous, I suggest all indigenous should receive the benefit whether they stayed connected to the land or left to pursue better opportunities.

People should not be punished because they left the land for education, employment, health etc for themselves or to provide this for their elders or kids.

There are over 70 Treaties in the Commonwealth. All territories invaded and conquered by the Imperial British Navy/military involved signed Treaties apart from Australia.

Our neighbour New Zealand has a Treaty with its indigenous people. Australia was eventually formally claimed by declaring Terra Nullius (illegal). A scam concocted in Melbourne and conveniently declared on a small baron island somewhere, then applied to all Australian territory.

(as far as Mabo is concerned, it's the weakest form of land rights which was further diluted by Federal government legislation - 10 point plan. Mabo is essentially a symbolic victory for indigenous land rights. Then we have the stolen generations, genocidal practices, land theft, stolen wages, child abuse and institutionalised discrimination - the bedrock of immoral criminal Australia that has never or rarely been addressed.)
 
There are over 70 Treaties in the Commonwealth. All territories invaded and conquered by the Imperial British Navy/military involved signed Treaties apart from Australia.

Our neighbour New Zealand has a Treaty with its indigenous people. Australia was eventually formally claimed by declaring Terra Nullius (illegal). A scam concocted in Melbourne and conveniently declared on a small baron island somewhere, then applied to all Australian territory.

(as far as Mabo is concerned, it's the weakest form of land rights which was further diluted by Federal government legislation - 10 point plan. Mabo is essentially a symbolic victory for indigenous land rights. Then we have the stolen generations, genocidal practices, land theft, stolen wages, child abuse and institutionalised discrimination - the bedrock of immoral criminal Australia that has never or rarely been addressed.)

I wasn't aware of the treaties. When were they signed? Can you provide a link, so I can research?

If correct and done before 1901, then we have a treaty as the colonies were british.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I wasn't aware of the treaties. When were they signed? Can you provide a link, so I can research?

If correct and done before 1901, then we have a treaty as the colonies were british.
The 70 odd Treaties I was referring to are Treaties involving the British Crown and Indigenous people in the various conquered territories and nations of the Commonwealth.

Australia is the only Commonwealth territory that lacks a treaty with its indigenous people.
A good point to start is New Zealand. New Zealand, has the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed in 1840 between the British Crown and over 500 Maori chiefs. At the time there were only about 6,000 British settlers (mainly seal hunters) on a small coastal region in NZ and the Maori population was probably over 150,000. The Treaty was taken all over NZ for all major tribes to ratify and propose any changes.
I am not sure why the standard Treaty process was not applied to the Australian case. The British Crown certainly demanded this, but it didnt happen.
 
Last edited:
The 70 odd Treaties I was referring to are Treaties involving the British Crown and Indigenous people in the various conquered territories and nations in the Commonwealth.

Australia is the only Commonwealth territory that lacks a treaty with its indigenous people.
A good point to start is New Zealand. New Zealand, has the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement signed in 1840 between the British Crown and over 500 Maori chiefs. At the time there were only about 6,000 British settlers (mainly seal hunters) on a small coastal region in NZ and the Maori population was probably over 150,000. The Treaty was taken all over NZ for all major tribes to ratify and propose any changes.
I am not sure why the standard Treaty process was not applied to the Australian case. The British Crown certainly demanded this, but it didnt happen.

cheers

we certainly have a huge opportunity to right the wrongs of the past. Hopefully we don't make the mistake of feel good policy that resulted from the wave hill walk out.

That single poorly managed policy had more negative impact on the indigenous community that every other cruel act of the past. Stripping away purpose in life, has destroyed so many lives and delivered diabetes, drug and alcohol abuse along with the flow on of acohol fetal syndrome.
 

Wind Guard

All Australian
Aug 2, 2017
618
572
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It's interesting that you mentioned 1901 - the year Australia formed its first Federal Parliament out of Melbourne.
One the first Acts of Parliament passed was the Immigration Restriction Act (1901) which is the basis of the White Australia Policy. This Act of Parliament lingered around until the 1950s when it was rescinded by Parliament.

Another odd outcome of that first Barton Ministry was that before the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, the Beer Excise Act (1901) was passed. Only this group of elite bearded top hats would get the tax of beer right before they implemented a racist immigration policy.

Australia Federal Ministry2.jpg
 
It's interesting that you mentioned 1901 - the year Australia formed its first Federal Parliament out of Melbourne.
One the first Acts of Parliament passed was the Immigration Restriction Act (1901) which is the basis of the White Australia Policy. This Act of Parliament lingered around until the 1950s when it was rescinded by Parliament.

Another odd outcome of that first Barton Ministry was that before the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, the Beer Excise Act (1901) was passed. Only this group of elite bearded top hats would get the tax of beer right before they implemented a racist immigration policy.

View attachment 710568

We wouldn't have federated, if not for the racist union elements in Melbourne demanding for not only a white australia policy but also to close the loophole of chinese landing in SA and walking to the gold fields
 
Back