Prospect or suspect uranium mining in AustraliA
Activity 4
The three mines policy: arguments for and against
In 1984 the federal Labor government confined Australia's uranium mining to those mines that were already in existence: Ranger, Olympic Dam and Nabarlek. This became known as the three mines policy.
- What are the arguments for and against going back to the three mines policy?
Teachers notes
Arguments for going back to the three mines policy could include:
- The hazards to the Australian environment outweigh any
potential economic gain.
- Uranium is a non-renewable resource. Perhaps if it is
not mined now, it could be more profitable to sell at a higher
price in the future when there are more safeguards.
- If Australia were to open more mines, it would increase
the supply of uranium. This increased supply might force down
the price, and reduce the pressure on society to conserve energy,
and to develop other energy sources.
Arguments against could include:
- If Australia forgoes selling some of its uranium because
of the three mines policy, other exporting countries will produce
more to fill the demand and 'take' the earnings from Australia.
- Other countries selling uranium may not have the same environmental safeguards or restrictions on end-use as we do and the global environment would suffer further damage.
- Greater use of uranium for power production would reduce
the emission of deleterious greenhouse gases produced by burning
coal and oil.
- Coal-burning power stations release small amounts of radioactive
uranium from the burnt coal. Nuclear power stations release no
radioactivity into the air (except when accidents occur).
External sites are not endorsed by the Australian Academy of Science.
Posted February 1997.
Posted February 1997.






