Detailed Account of the Beverley Uranium Deposit
Information up to late 1998. Due to be updated in the near future (hopefully).
The controversial Beverley uranium deposit is located on the plains between the northern Flinders Ranges and the north-western Lake Frome plains, approximately 600 km north of Adelaide and 300 km north-east of Port Augusta. The deposit was first planned as an open cut mine, although the second attempt at development planned to use the controversial techqnique of solution mining techniques or In Situ Leaching (ISL) to recover approximately 11,600 tonnes of U3O8 (1). It is a small to medium-sized uranium deposit, initially thought to contain about 16,200 tonnes U3O8 (1) at an average grade of 0.27% in an old sand-filled paleaochannel about 110 to 140 metres below the surface. Recent exploration and a revised resource estimate that includes lower grades of uranium ore has increased the size of the deposit extractable by ISL to 21,000 tonnes (2).
The project was decisively rejected by the South Australian government in early 1983. However, upon return of the Liberal-National Coalition to federal government in early 1996, current owner Heathgate Resources (subsidiary of US nuclear multinational General Atomics) re-applied for development of the project in mid-1996.
The Beverley area is an area of great significance for the local Adnyamathanha Aboriginal community, a fact which has been recognised since 1930-40 (3).
The uranium mineralisation is contained in three main ore lenses within friable sands and clays of the Tertiary Namba Formation (4). The mineralisation occurs within a semi-isolated aquifer zone that resembles a concealed fluvial system. The uranium mineral itself is coffinite, a uraniferous hydrosilicate mineral. It is believed to have been originally derived from known uranium mineralisation in older rocks of the Mt Painter region of the Northern Flinders Ranges 10 km to the north-west (1). Geology & Mineralisation
The first discovery of uranium mineralisation at the Beverley deposit was in 1969 by the OTP group of companies (Oilmin-Transoil-Petromin, a corporation partly influenced by the well-known racist ex-Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Peterson). Detailed drilling investigations undertaken as a Joint Venture between the OTP group and Western Uranium Ltd (acquired by Phelps Dodge Corporation in 1971, becoming Western Nuclear (5) ) led to formal discovery of an economic orebody in July 1970. Mine History
An intensive drilling program was undertaken from 1971 to 72 by Western Nuclear, which was closely followed by metallurgical and engineering studies aimed toward an open cut mining operation. Further exploration was also undertaken. The fall in the uranium market in the early 1970s caused the project to be mothballed in June 1974 (4).
The South Australian Uranium Corporation (SAUC) bought the Beverley deposit in 1981 and began studies towards an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The SAUC undertook further intensive drilling, although results and activities over this development and the previous 1970s era were not always well documented (4).
The relatively new and experimental technique of uranium extraction by In Situ Leaching (ISL) or "Solution Mining" was planned to be used. The Draft EIS was submitted in July 1982, and received overwhelming criticisms from environment groups, institutions, and numerous concerned citizens. A total of 222 submissions were made to the Draft EIS.
Some selected comments by Dr Dennis Matthews (6) :
Due to the poor quality of the EIS, the Environmental Assessment process was delayed and the South Australian Government refused approvals in March 1983, citing the following reasons at the time (7) :lack of clarity concerning the nature of the proposal and activities, such as the pilot plant versus a full scale commercial mine; no published guidelines for the EIS, nor were they available prior to the EIS being released; the economic viability was not assured, especially given the economic analysis assumed twice the current (1982) spot price for yellowcake - current (1982) prices were not sufficient to cover capital and production costs ($557 million); extremely poor hydrogeological information, unable to accurately assess the nature of the risks involved; it assumed groundwater was not of sufficient quality to require rehabilitation following in situ leach mining - despite the environmental value of groundwater in a semi-arid climate; inconsistent published flow rates for waste-water disposal, leaving excess quantities of water to be disposed of presumably back into the mined aquifer; to be discussing excursions of leaching solutions while actively promoting the disposal of waste water by re-injection into the mined out aquifer shows a complete lack of environmental concern; inaccurate estimation of severe flash flood potential; project assumed adequate dispersal of radon gas, yet ignores the wide meteorological variability for the region, and the fact that radon decays into other radioactive solids that create radioactive fallout in the receiving area; mathematical models are not validated; the toxicity and carcinogenicity of the tertiary amine solvent to be used was not discussed, nor of the high radiotoxicity of ammonium diurinate in body fluids (part of the process stream). A Supplementary EIS was not prepared and the Beverley Project was shelved for a second time, due to the SA government refusing to issue a mineral lease, NOT THE THREE MINES POLICY. The then leader of the SA Liberal Opposition, Mr John Olsen, said that a Liberal government would allow the project to go ahead according to procedures outlined in the EIS (7). Mr Olsen, current Premier of South Australia, has waited 14 years to carry out his threat.many of the economic, social, biological, genetic, safety and environmental problems associated with the nuclear industry were unresolved; endorsement of the Government's position by a wide range of community groups, including the Australian Democrats; commitment to the Roxby Downs project; community disquiet at the nature of the ISL process. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, an Australian company, was established by General Atomics in 1990 when the Beverley deposit was acquired (November 1990), specifically to manage it's development and any future acquisitions or ventures which General Atomics might consider in Australia (8). New studies were initiated into potential mining of the deposit using ISL (4). Initially, two cored boreholes were drilled through the ore zone in 1991, with the core samples being used for geological and confirmatory metallurgical testing (4).
In late 1995 and early 1996, General Atomics were keen to develop a new production operation and were engaged in a worldwide evaluation of potential projects to develop (8).
General Atomics therefore do not have any history of direct involvement with uranium mining, and none whatsoever with the In Situ Leaching (ISL) technique.
In May 1996 Beverley was chosen as the first major project to begin development, having the "...right combination for both short-term development, moderate production costs and long-term productivity" (8). With the election of the conservative Howard federal government in early 1996 and the subsequent scrapping of the ALP Three Mines Policy, Heathgate accelerated their development program. They were formally designated as the project proponent by the Commonwealth government on October 4, 1996 (9), to undertake Environmental Impact Assessment procedures with a view to establishing a full-scale commercial uranium mine at the Beverley site.
Development of the Beverley deposit to a full scale mine is proceeding according to a five stage process, with each stage purposely designed to build towards the final full-scale facility : Current Proposal and Activities
Under South Australian mining legislation, Stages One to Three are regulated by mining companies submitting a "Declaration of Environmental Factors" document which detail their proposals. This is primarily a process between the proponents and Mines and Energy South Australia (MESA) with no direct public input as to the suitability of where mining exploration takes place, the elements and minerals that should be mined nor the type of mining technique should be encouraged. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) has no statutory say in the environmental regulation of such activities. The fourth stage is controlled by both the Commonwealth and South Australian governments, while the fifth and final stage is controlled only by the Commonwealth government.Stage One - further exploratory drilling and desktop feasibility studies; Stage Two - the installation of two "5-spot" borehole systems for pump testing of the aquifer; Stage Three - Field Leaching Trials (FLT) of in situ leaching (ISL) using the previously installed "5-spot" patterns; Stage Four - Environmental Impact Assessment, public review and comment on the EIS, Native Title Agreements negotiated, government decision on the proposal; Stage Five - final approval, uranium export permits issued and full-scale commercial uranium mine. Heathgate have thus been progressing their development of the Beverley Project through private consultation with the South Australian government without rigorous public scrutiny, despite the significant environmental problems associated with uranium mining and the in situ leaching technique.
Before final mining licences and uranium export permits can be issued, Heathgate must come to Agreement with all registered Native Title claimants of the region (discussed in more detail below).
A proposal to undertake further exploratory drilling was submitted to MESA in late October 1996 (the Stage One Declaration of Environmental Factors) (10). The work was intended to "improve knowledge of ore distribution and geochemistry" (4). This work commenced in early 1997 with a total of ten boreholes being drilled across the three main ore zones. The boreholes were completed as observation wells for ongoing groundwater monitoring.
The approval for Stage Two was sought in a Declaration of Environmental Factors document submitted to MESA on March 7, 1997 (11). This approval was forthcoming from MESA in early May 1997. A further drilling program was thus begun to install two "5-spot" borehole patterns for hydrogeological testing and later Field Trials of In Situ Leaching (ISL) (11). This consisted of one "5-spot" borehole pattern on the Northern ore zone and one "5-spot" pattern on the Central ore zone. There was a need for a detention pond for this pump testing due to the high volumes of water involved. The original design presented in Heathgate Resources (1997b) (11) was for an unlined construction, which would allow excessive seepage from the pond of moderately saline and radioactive groundwater. After MESA approval on June 30, 1997 (12), the design was upgraded to incorporate a liner and leak detection system, which could later be used in the Field Leach Trial (FLT) (4).
The approvals relating to these developments were refused to be released to the public by MESA, despite continuing community concern on uranium mining. The ACF asked on May 8, 1997, (13) :
"What measures are being taken to protect the environment, to prevent contamination of the Great Artesian Basin, to protect the public and to protect workers ? The uranium industry is inherently dangerous yet Government are acting as though it is only interested in protecting General Atomics from public scrutiny by trying to keep their operations secret. There must be a full disclosure and public scrutiny of General Atomics' operations at Beverley."Heathgate responded by saying that "philosophical opposition to uranium mining (has) blurred the ACF's vision", with "the uranium mining industry (being) the most regulated industry in Australia" (14). Heathgate stated that if the ACF was seeking information, "all it has to do is call Heathgate" (14). However, this was not quite the case. The ACF had written to Heathgate requesting such information (15), yet no such hospitality was forthcoming.Following the completion of pump testing, Heathgate have now begun Stage Three of development of the Beverley deposit by undertaking a Field Leaching Trial (FLT) - a small scale mining operation using in situ leaching (ISL) to recover uranium from the ore by injecting corrosive chemicals into the groundwater and then pumping them back to the surface with the dissolved uranium.
The effective decision to proceed with this type of mining was first made in May 1997, with the MESA claiming "little environmental damage" is expected from the ISL mining proposal (16). This is despite the fact that for environmental reasons, and based upon overseas experience with the (ISL) technique, in situ leaching has never been used for commercial production before in Australia (17). The "obvious conflict of interest" that MESA face in both promoting mining and regulating it's environmental performance was very quickly pointed out by the Conservation Council of South Australia - "The department is not an authority on environmental matters" (18).
The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, quickly tried to deny that the FLT was actually mining and that only an evaluation trial was taking place : "I do not think we would describe it as trial mining." (emphasis added) (19). Perhaps another important point to note is that various Commonwealth departments have made no environmental assessments of uranium in situ leaching mining proposals since 1982 or 1983 (20), and thus their expertise in regulating this form of mining is quite limited.
The extraction of the uranium from the Beverley orebody by ISL is unequivocally mining - uranium is being extracted (21).
Another significant issue is the use of United States privacy laws to restrict public disclosure of information by Heathgate Resources. Initially in June 1997, the federal government could not guarantee that it would prevent Heathgate from using such laws (19). By September 1997 Heathgate had confirmed "...that they will comply with all Australian laws in relation to the operation of the proposed Beverley uranium project, and will not use any restrictions in public disclosure that might apply in the USA." (20)
From July to August 1997, public attention was now starting to increase concerning Heathgate's secret development of the Beverley deposit. Several people and organisations were now starting to highlight the uranium mine by writing to the media, politicians and Heathgate requesting information and challenging various assertions made with regards to potential environmental problems at Beverley (22, 22, 23). The main points addressed in these letters and media releases were :
Heathgate responded by mid September stating that (24, 25, 26) :the level of secrecy which was occurring; the threat of contamination of the Great Artesian Basin and surrounding groundwater systems; lack of public consultation; the developing of field leaching trials without a proper, transparent environmental impact assessment process; consultation with the broad Adnyamathanha community. It is worth pointing out that :there was no potential for contamination of the Great Artesian Basin; the public will have opportunities to comment through their EIS (but not on the trial mining currently operating, that is!); there was no secrecy surrounding the project; the community has a right to a say in the management of State and National resources, but this needs to be based on the community being "properly informed" and not being alarmed with misinformation (naming the Conservation Council of South Australia, Friends of the Earth and others, inferring that the general public were being alarmed - "either deliberately or accidentally" - without determining the "veracity of claims"); they have "...a commitment to keeping the community informed" (25) (informed but no opportunity for consultation on environmental performance ?); the majority of South Australians supported the mining and export of uranium under stringent safeguards. Thus it would be easy to infer the "veracity" of various claims made.the two Declaration of Environmental Factors documents supporting Heathgate's initial exploratory drilling and two "5-spot" bore installations remain unpublished and thus unavailable to the wider public; there is potential for contamination of the Great Artesian Basin and especially the surrounding groundwater resources of the Lake Frome region, and many of these issues remain scientifically unresolved; the majority of Australians have not supported the mining and export of uranium for some decades. The Beverley Project is now undertaking a Field Leach Trial, discussed in detail below.
The Adnyamathanha Aboriginal community, traditional owners and Native Title claimants of the region, are also deeply concerned about the pace of development of the Beverley site and consultation processes Heathgate are currently undertaking with respect to Agreements for proposed mining.
The Declaration of Environmental Factors (DEF) document for the proposed Field Leach Trial (FLT) was submitted by Heathgate to MESA on September 5, 1997 (4). A Supplementary DEF, concerning the results of recent pump testing near two old exploration boreholes, was submitted on September 25, 1997. These documents formed the basis for Heathgate's assessment - not that of an independent consultant as one should expect for Environmental Impact Assessment - of the potential environmental impacts of the FLT. The Field Leach Trial (FLT) of In Situ Leaching at Beverley
Formal approval for the Field Leaching Trial at Beverley was given by Rob Kerin, South Australian Minister for Primary Industries and Natural Resources, on November 3 (27). Despite the explicit instructions of the Minister, Rob Kerin, in a Nov. 10 (1997) memo to the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, for public release and accessibility of the documents (28), they were not made available to the public until December 19 (1997), and even then only for four days in total before being withdrawn. The current status is unknown.
The actual ISL trials finally began on January 2, 1998 (29) - less than two months after approvals.
A detailed critique of the D.E.F. and Supplement to the D.E.F. for the trial is here :
The Beverley Groundwater Sacrifice Zone In short, they can be summarised as being deficient due to the fact that :
The trial mining of uranium at Beverley by In Situ Leaching (ISL) techniques is thus proceeding without many of the fundamental questions about environmental safety being addressed in detail, without responsible solid and liquid waste management programs and under a veil of secrecy, etc. See also :there is a decisive lack of detailed qualitative and quantitative information on regional groundwater movement; there is a lack of clarity concerning data requirements; it did not conclusively prove the Beverley orebody aquifer was completely isolated from surrounding groundwater systems; references are made to old exploration boreholes that leaked and went unnoticed, and still fails to adequately address current management of these old boreholes and preventing the escape of the highly toxic leaching solutions via these boreholes; there is a lack of geochemical data to justify assumptions on groundwater chemistry; it exaggerates current groundwater quality of the Beverley orebody (Namba) aquifer; the groundwater monitoring regime is poorly designed; the excess solutions from pump testing are to be re-injected back into the orebody aquifer with no plans for rehabilitation; it underestimates the potential problems of flash flooding inundating parts of the Beverley site; it underestimates the risks of high background radiation levels given the identified atmospheric inversions that are known to occur; poor environmental design of the Field Leaching Trial; the FLT contains extremely high concentrations of dissolved uranium; excess waste water solutions are to be re-injected into the Beverley aquifer; it ignores the possibility that the re-injected solutions could mobilise higher concentrations of radionuclides and heavy metals orders of magnitude above background levels; there are no plans for rehabilitation of groundwater after trials, even if full scale mining were not to proceed; solid wastes were planned to be disposed of at the old Radium Hill underground workings; the original design for the detention pond was unlined; numerous assumptions are made without the scientific data presented to justify such assumptions; etc etc etc etc etc etc etc........
The Beverley Groundwater Sacrifice Zone Beverley : Questions & Answers
(problems of ISL worldwide)The broad Adnyamathanha community have been expressing concern over uranium mining developments in the Northern Flinders Ranges for nearly 50 years (30). "Traditional Adnyamathanha cultural history details a very important warning about the Beverley area and in fact wherever other deposits have been 'discovered' by mining exploration. These areas are described in oral history as "tabu zones" and "poisonous ground" and the gases and water sources in these areas likewise" (30). Concerns of the Adnyamathanha Aboriginal Community
"Our predecessors before us opposed the mining of uranium back in the 1950's and again in the 1980's, based on these oral history accounts. Our oral history provides us with knowledge about the formation of the Flinders Ranges, and provides warnings about areas such as Mt Painter. Our history dates back well before the arrival of Europeans to this land, and remains a very real and very credible part of our fundamental beliefs". (30)Currently, Heathgate are required negotiate with legitimate Native Title Claimants only. Until late 1997, this meant two claims on behalf of individuals - one member from the Adnyamathanha community and one from the Kuyani community. Heathgate has signed Agreements with these two Native Title Claimants, agreements which involve the transfer of money. Neither claimants share the support of the broader Adnyamathanha community (30). In fact, the Flinders Ranges Aboriginal Heritage Consultative Committee (the statutory body designated to look after Aboriginal Heritage issues for the region) stated that they feel it was their"responsibility to stand strong on this issue and denounce the authority of these people who falsely claim their spiritual connection with the land, and respect for the wisdom for their elders. Instead we will continue (as our elders did) to resist the pressure of mining companies wishing to unearth uranium at Beverley and elsewhere in our area". (30)There is a clear message of opposition from the Adnyamathanha people to the proposed Beverley project. Recently, two more Native Title claims were accepted by the Native Title Tribunal, claims which were lodged on behalf of the broad Adnyamathanha community. Heathgate will now be legally obligated to consult with these new claimants and come to some Agreement before a full scale mine could proceed.Recent legal advice (Bradshaw, pers. comm.) has suggested that the validity of the two Agreements with Heathgate by the individual Native Title Claimants is in question, since Mining and Native Title legislation specifically requires individuals to represent their communities and not their own interests.
Given the very clear tone of deep concern and opposition within the community, Heathgate will no longer be able to manipulate individuals to their own advantage. Without broad Agreements in place with the Adnyamathanha community, Beverley will not be able to proceed to a full scale mining project.
With the commencement of the "trials" on January 2, 1998, the year has apparently begun well for Heathgate. In mid February, at the second Australian Uranium Summit held in Adelaide (the industry conference telling each other how ethically responsible they are....), they announced that the size of the Beverley orebody was actually twice that previously calculated. The new size was 21,000 tonnes of U3O8 mineable by In Situ Leaching (2). 1998 The Year That Is.....
However, persistent media and community education work by the Australian Conservation Foundation was staring to hurt. Consistent claims of secrecy and requests for documents through Freedom of Information legislation were hitting their mark, and on February 26 Rob Kerin launched a scathing and unparalleled attack, claiming (31) :
"I've had a gutful of these knockers."Every one of those sentences is entirely unfounded and merely represents a calculated attempt to heinously manipulate public opinion which is clearly against the mining and export of uranium.Besides, if Heathgate and the SA government have nothing to hide and are proud of their scientific and engineering prowess at Beverley to date, what does hiding documents and then viciously attacking groups who seek those documents achieve (groups who are using their fundamental legal rights for access to information on which governments make their decisions) ?
All of the documents relating to the approval of the DEF were subsequently released, as well as the DEF for the recently approved Field Leach Trials at the nearby Honeymoon Project. A summary of the FoI documents for the DEF is collated here. Essentially only one government assessment independently and rigorously critiqued the DEF. All other comments were of a minor nature. So much for a strong and independent government process!!
The Final Guidelines for the EIS were released in late March, indicating that the EIS itself is very close to completion and public release. The EIS will therefore be released long before the current "trials" are due to be completed, making an absolute farce of Heathgate's claim that they were needed as direct and environmentally responsible input to the EIS.
Public knowledge of the operation of the FLT has been very carefully controlled, although Heathgate have made repeated claims about it's better than expected success but with no public release of the supporting technical data (2, CC, DD).
The Adnyamathanha have been put under enormous pressure by Heathgate, who argue that the community is going to miss out on any compensation if they do not have a formal Agreement with the company. Heathgate argued that if the ALP were to get back in power with the upcoming election the mine would presumably be vetoed by the current ALP "No New Mines" Policy, or if the Liberals were to get back in then all Native Title rights would be removed by the Coalition's Wik Amendment Bill and the company not forced to negotiate with the Adnyamathanha. Either way, it was in the community's best interest to have a signed agreement with Heathgate to ensure they were in the best position possible, regardless.
After weekend meetings nearly every week for almost three months straight ranging from Port Augusta to the Beverley site to Hawker, the Adnyamathanha decided in March to avoid already intense fracturing within the broad community and open negotiations with Heathgate. As yet, due to the complexity of competing Native Title claims, community disquiet and lack of government funding lawyers, no progress has been made on negotiations.
Beverley's Future ?
Simple - there isn't one.
Leave it in the ground.
Page developed by for SEA-US Inc. 1 - South Australian Uranium Corporation (SAUC), (1982), Beverley Project : Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS), July 1982.Page last updated - September 2, 1998.
References :
2 - J J Graham, The Role of the Beverley ISL Uranium Mine in Today's Market, 2ND Annual Australian Uranium Summit, February 11-13, 1998, Adelaide, South Australia.
3 - Letter to SA Deputy Premier/Minister for Mines & Energy, Mr Stephen Baker, from Jasemin Rose, Conservation Council of South Australia President, October 26, 1996.
4 - Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, (1997a), Declaration of Environmental Factors (D.E.F.) in Support of a Proposal to Undertake a Field Trial of Uranium Extraction by In Situ Leaching at Beverley, South Australia; Prepared by Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd., September 5, 1997.
5 - The Gulliver File, Western Nuclear Dossier (File 653).
6 - Dr Dennis Matthews - Comments on the Beverley Uranium Project Draft EIS by South Australian Uranium Corporation, July 1982.
7 - The 83 Truth for Stopping Beverley & Honeymoon - a compilation of newspaper articles showing the truth for stopping the mines in March 1983.
8 - Transcript of the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling (SSCUMM) hearing in Adelaide, January 24, 1997.
9 - "(Final) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Development of the Beverley Uranium Project, South Australia", Planning SA and Environment Australia, March 1998.
10 - Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, (1996), Declaration of Environmental Factors in Support of a Proposal to Undertake a Drilling Program at Beverley, South Australia. Geoprojects Pty Ltd, October 20, 1996. (Unpublished)
11 - Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, (1997b), Declaration of Environmental Factors in Support of a Proposal to Undertake a Water Well Drilling and Hydrogeological Testing Program at Beverley, South Australia. Geoprojects Pty Ltd/Fatchen Environmental Pty Ltd, March 7, 1997. (Unpublished)
12 - Letter to Heathgate Resources from MESA, June 30, 1997.
13 - Media Release, Australian Conservation Foundation, May 8, 1997.
14 - Media Release, Heathgate Resources Ltd, May 8, 1997.
15 - Letter to Heathgate Resources from ACF, July 29, 1997.
16 - In Situ Leaching Option for SA Uranium Mines, The Australian, June 2, 1997.
17 - Letter to the Editor, Ophelia Cowell (ACF), The Australian, June 2, 1997.
18 - Letter to the Editor, Dr Dennis Matthews (Nuclear Issues Action Group, CCSA), The Australian, June 3, 1997.
19 - Estimates Committee Hansard, Australian Senate, pages 131 to 134, June 5, 1997.
20 - Department of Environment, Sports and Territories, September 22, 1997, advice to Senator Margetts.
21 - Media Release, Conservation Council of South Australia - Nuclear Issues Action Group, July 25, 1997.
22 - Media Release, Students' Associations of University of Adelaide/Flinders University/University of South Australia, August 18, 1997.
23 - Letter from Friends of the Earth Australia to Heathgate Resources, July 29, 1997.
24 - Letter from Heathgate Resources to the Australian Conservation Foundation, July 21, 1997.
25 - Letter from Heathgate Resources to the Friends of the Earth Australia, August 19, 1997.
26 - Letter from Heathgate Resources to the Environment Officer, Students' Association, University of Adelaide, September 16, 1997.
27 - Letter to Heathgate Resources from Rob Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Natural Resources, Nov. 3, 1997.
28 - Letter to the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs from Minister Rob Kerin, Nov. 10, 1997.
29 - "SA uranium field goes to trial", Australian Financial Review, Thursday, January 8, 1998.
30 - Letter to David Brunt (DSJ Consulting Services, to be forwarded to Heathgate Resources) from the Flinders Ranges Aboriginal Heritage Consultative Committee Inc. (FRAHCC), December 10, 1997.
31 - Media Release - Rob Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Natural Resources, Feb. 26, 1998.
32 - Notes from the Adnyamathanha Native Title Management Committee meeting by Dr Dennis Matthews, Feb. ??, 1998.
33 - Notes from the Adnyamathanha-Heathgate meeting by Dr Dennis Matthews, Feb. ??, 1998.
Back to the Beverley Archives or Back to the SEA-US Front Page
Copyright © SEA-US 1998-2001