Palladin Resources Kayelekera Uranium Project in Malawi, Africa would not be approved in Australia, concludes independent reviewers

Palladin Resources has gained approval from the Malawian government to proceed with the  Kayelekera Uranium Project, despite evidence from independent experts that the serious deficiences in the project mean the project would not be given the go ahead here in Australia  

The Kayelekera Uranium Mine in Malawi, Central Africa is a proposal by Australian company Palladin Resources for the first uranium development in the small central African nation.

Palladin Resources
Palladin resources is an Australian based mineral resources and development company. Paladin Resources’ primary focus is on identifying, acquiring, evaluating and developing uranium assets. . The shares of Paladin Resources are listed on stock exchanges in (Australian Stock Exchange), (Toronto Stock Exchange) and (Munich, Berlin, Stuttgart and Frankfurt Stock Exchanges)

Palladin Resources is an Australian based uranium mining company. It has no prior mining experience, as it has held uranium tenements in Western Australia where uranium mining is currently banned. It has recently started its first operations in Namibia. These have also been controversial, with independent reviews of the environmental impact statement identifying inadequacies and flaws.n The Namibia Branch of the environmental organization  Earthlife Africa criticized the environmental and health hazards of the project. According to a report prepared by German  Oko Institut on behalf of Earthlife, Paladin's Environmental Assessment underestimates the radiation doses fourfold. Moreover, the proposed tailings management concept would have serious flaws.(Allgemeine Zeitung Sep. 16, 2005)

Major Flaws, Gaps and Inadeqacies in Environmental Impact Assessment and Project Design:

An  independent review of the environmental impact assessment undertaken by Australian scientists identified major flaws, omission and inadequacies.

Dr Gavin Mudd,  one of the independent reveiwers, who travelled to Malawi to assist with  technical capacity building of local community and civil society concluded that the mine would not have been given approval in Australia due to the major flaws in the assessment and design proposals.

Indicative of the company's approach, the Melbourne Herald Sun of April 3 2006 had   quoted John Borshoff, Paladin’s managing director, as saying: “There has been an over compensation in terms of thinking about environmental and social issues in regard to uranium operations in Australia, forcing companies like Paladin into Africa”.

. The most critical aspects identified from a technical / scientific  perspective include :

 • Baseline Environmental Studies : the Kayelekera EIA fails to include studies of both sufficient scientific quality and length of environmental monitoring to make a credible case for assessing the extent of potential impacts from the proposed Kayelekera uranium project. This includes study  of existing water quality, environmental and radiological conditions.

 • Tailings : at present, Paladin propose to leave the tailings (the radioactive material left after processing and uranium extraction) above ground. In Australia it is scientifically accepted that the best  long-term outcome for uranium tailings is to deposit them back into a former open cut (or even underground) mine, thereby ensuring better  long-term environmental and radiological security. 

 • Water Management : at present, Paladin propose to allow the direct  release of contaminated mine site waters under heavy rainfall conditions. The local community continue to use the adjacent streams and rivers for  water and food gathering, giving rise to significant risks of  contamination through direct release as well as build-up of pollutants in  the environment.

• Rehabilitation : at present, insufficient commitments are made  regarding rehabilitation following closure of the proposed project. Paladin do not commit to ongoing monitoring, a conceptual land form design, back-filling of the pit with tailings and waste rock, nor some  arrangement for a financial bond to be placed with government to secure  rehabilitation works should the project or Paladin become financially  incapable.

Other areas of irresponsible conduct are:

Failure to Commit to Respecting Domestic Laws 
Palladin Resources has refused to commit not to seek excemptions to the exisiting regulatory requirements in Malawi when queried by Australian and Malawian non government organisations.
Paladin’s use of water and electricity are also contentious. A leaked copy of the draft state agreement act raised concerns that the company would be allowed it rights to water and electricity that  could potentially override  Malawian people’s existing rights, and indemnifies the company from compensation for any losses.

Most people do not have access to clean water, and the government does not have programs to make water from the lake available to rural areas. Most Malawians experience acute shortages of electricity, generated by hydroelectric schemes, as droughts are already forcing power rationing to many residential areas.  Local organisations have concerns that this will worsen when Paladin starts using these much needed resources.

Use of Intimidation and Threatening Tactics against Local Civil Society:
Local civil society have been subject to intimidatory behaviour by company executives, including threats that they would be ‘reported to the government’ when seeking clarifications as to the company’s conduct and activities.  In late December 2006, NGO leaders allege being ordered to the police station and threatened with arrest when hosting the visit of an Australian photojournalist who had been interviewing local community members about the mine. Allegedly the police chief had told them that Palladin had contacted the police and claimed they were on the mine site. According to the head of Citizens for Justice they were told that any future meetings about uranium needed to be reported to the police.
 

Improper Community Consultation and Payments to local leaders:
Paladin is also undermining local decision making by effectively putting local village chiefs on the company payroll, and promising communities new school blocks, roads, internet, an airport and clean water without informing them of the negative impacts of the operation. One chief in a video interview stated that he was happy because he was receiving money but that he knew nothing of the negative effects the mine would bring. Palladin refused to confirm the nature of payments being made, in written responses to MPI's requests stating that all payments are for services rendered.  

Paladin Resources refused to provide “scoping documents” or information to local civil society until the EIS was released/ Under Malawian environmental law the availability of scoping documents  are supposed to ensure that the community can identify issues and key concerns can be integrated at an early stage in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process.

Destruction of Cultural Heritage:
Infrastructure development for the mine destroyed shrines of local people without consultation or notification. This was a source of distress and  ange to locals people, and Palladin is yet to clarify the nature or extent of restitution or compensation over this issue.

Supporting Documentation:

Kayelekera Uranium Project – A Question of Standards ?

Dr Gavin M. Mudd (Monash University)

Professional Opinion : February 2007, Published Malawian T

The Malawi community and Malawi Government can choose their own future. Indeed, many people of good heart and intellectual integrity are hoping Malawi will do just that. One of the current issues which will help determine Malawi’s future is the proposed Kayelekera uranium project proposed by Australian mining company Paladin Resources Ltd. In late 2006 Paladin released an environmental impact assessment (EIA) study report for their proposal to mine uranium at Kayelekera, west of Karonga in northern Malawi.

Various civil society organisations have raised a variety of concerns about the Kayelekera project, the EIA and Paladin’s proposal, including concerns about mining standards as well as economic and social impacts. Given my academic qualifications and long involvement in uranium and other mining issues in Australia, myself and some colleagues submitted a detailed review of the EIA report to the Malawi Government and civil society groups in late 2006. During February 2007 I was privileged to be able to visit Malawi and meet with the Malawi community, civil society groups and the Malawi Government to elaborate on the numerous issues we had identified. This is a brief summary of those concerns, to help inform debate in Malawi about the proposed Kayelekera uranium project.

The most critical aspects identified from a technical / scientific perspective include :

• Baseline Environmental Studies : the Kayelekera EIA fails to include studies of both sufficient scientific quality and length of environmental monitoring to make a credible case for assessing the extent of potential impacts from the proposed Kayelekera uranium project. This includes study of existing water quality, environmental and radiological conditions.
• Tailings : at present, Paladin propose to leave the tailings (the radioactive material left after processing and uranium extraction) above ground. In Australia it is scientifically accepted that the best long-term outcome for uranium tailings is to deposit them back into a former open cut (or even underground) mine, thereby ensuring better long-term environmental and radiological security.
• Water Management : at present, Paladin propose to allow the direct release of contaminated mine site waters under heavy rainfall conditions. The local community continue to use the adjacent streams and rivers for water and food gathering, giving rise to significant risks of contamination through direct release as well as build-up of pollutants in the environment.
• Rehabilitation : at present, insufficient commitments are made regarding rehabilitation following closure of the proposed project. Paladin do not commit to ongoing monitoring, a conceptual land form design, back-filling of the pit with tailings and waste rock, nor some arrangement for a financial bond to be placed with government to secure rehabilitation works should the project or Paladin become financially incapable.

The above major components of the Kayelekera EIA were discussed at length with officials from the Malawi Government and at numerous community meetings across Malawi during early February 2007. There is extensive scientific experience in Australia, Canada and other countries that justifies and underpins these professional judgements.

It is clear that the proposals by Paladin Resources Ltd for the Kayelekera uranium project, given the substantial weaknesses identified in the EIA, would not receive approvals by the community, regulators and government in Australia. This statement is not made without recognising its full implications.

In my professional opinion, it would therefore be entirely justified for the Malawi community and Malawi Government to postpone the signing of any legal agreements and regulatory approvals over the project until the above issues (amongst several others) are addressed to the satisfaction of the Malawi community and Malawi Government. This does not mean the project should not be approved – that is, of course, up to Malawi (and not myself nor Paladin). The project as currently proposed clearly does not meet expected Australian standards for uranium mining. Given the lack of history of uranium mining in Malawi, the insufficient expertise within the Malawi community and Government, and that Paladin Resources are an Australian-based company, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Paladin should adopt Australian uranium mining standards as a basic minimum for their proposed Kayelekera uranium project. In fact, they can do and should do better. The Malawi community and Malawi Government deserve no less.

Dr Gavin M. Mudd
B. Env. Eng (Hons), PhD
Environmental Engineering, Monash University
 

For more information, please contact:

Techa Beaumont


Workphone: +61 2 9557 9019
Mobile: +61 409 318 406

Created: 01 Mar 2007 | Last updated: 01 Mar 2007

This page: http://www.mpi.org.au/ campaigns/waste/malawi/

Opentracker.net: Web Statistics