Environmental Defenders Office
Info Main shafts of Olympic Dam Cu-U-Au-Ag mine in South Australia by Geomartin via Creative Commons Licence.
November 9, 2012

Olympic Dam Case

Judicial Review – Olympic Dam Expansion

In 2012 the EDO filed an application in the Federal Court on behalf of Mr Kevin Buzzacott challenging the Commonwealth Environment Minister’s 2011 approval of the proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam mine by BHP Billton.

At the time the proposal was to transform the mine to an open cut pit approximately 1 km deep and 4 km wide. The Court application questioned the legal process followed in approving the proposed expansion, and if successful had the potential to have wider significance for other similar approvals in Australia. The  application sought orders from the Federal Court that the Minister’s approval be reviewed and, subject to the Court’s findings, to be set aside and referred back to the Minister for further consideration according to the law.

Mr Buzzacott challenged the Minister’s approval on the following grounds:  

  1. The approval is so uncertain that it does not constitute a proper approval under the Act. This is because much of the environmental assessment and decision-making is left up to plans and studies that have not yet been prepared or considered by the Minister or the public. 
  2. The Minister did not properly consider the impact of the Olympic Dam expansion on the environment. In particular, the EDO’s client is arguing that the Minister has not properly considered impacts from the above ground storage of radioactive tailings waste. 
  3. The Minister did not properly consider the impact of the Olympic Dam expansion on the environment. In particular, the EDO’s client is arguing that the Minister has not properly considered impacts from the above ground storage of radioactive tailings waste. 
  4. The Minister failed to consider the environmental impacts associated with the export of uranium.
  5. The Minister failed to properly consider the impacts of the expansion on groundwater resources including the Great Artesian Basin.

Unfortunately the Federal Court ultimately rejected Mr Buzzacott’s application.

However a positive aspect of the case was that the Federal Court at first instance did not award costs against Mr Buzzacott as it considered the case was sufficiently in the public interest and there were arguable grounds of appeal. Whilst the planned expansion was later put on hold due to low commodity prices, BHP Billiton has since proposed a revised method of extraction.

EDO South Australia was the legal entity acting in this case.  EDO South Australia agreed to merge with EDO Ltd in 2019.