
BHP to destroy at least 40 Aboriginal sites, up to 15K years old, to expand mine - pseudolus
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/11/bhp-to-destroy-at-least-40-aboriginal-sites-up-to-15000-years-old-to-expand-pilbara-mine
======
9nGQluzmnq3M
Context: these Aboriginal sites are basically caves, trees and rocks showing
signs of former habitation, with the most significant artifact uncovered at
the site below being a length of plaited human hair. I'm no fan of open-pit
mining, but BHP is not exactly nuking the Parthenon or the Taj Mahal here.

[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/may/26/rio-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/may/26/rio-tinto-blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-
iron-ore-mine)

~~~
neRok
I'm a draftsman that works for a construction company that builds a lot of the
infrastructure for these mines. Recently I was looking at some maps with a
civil draftee, and I asked him what all the red dots were all over the map. He
said they were all Aboriginal heritage sites. There was a lot of them,
scattered everywhere. It was like the map had chicken-pox.

So whilst I think it is important to protect this history, some of it can't be
that important. I imagine that is what the traditional owners also thought
when they signed the agreements. The article mentions "significant cumulative
loss", which would become a problem when you sign away the rights to the lot.

But in the case of the cave that Rio Tinto destroyed, surely that was
significant enough to protect and work around. I know that it wouldn't take
long to design around such a requirement, which makes the outcome even more
disappointing.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I’m a boilermaker who isn’t getting any younger, working in Launceston
operating a laser cutter, considering getting in to steel detailing / 3D
modelling.

Any advice?

~~~
neRok
I started out as a steel detailer but haven't worked in that sector for over
10 years, so I've not got my finger on the pulse. But in the design sector I'm
in now, it's a bit quiet at the moment and has been for a few years, and that
means there are a lot of experienced draftee's out there without work - left
overs from the boom times. So in that regard, it might not be the best
industry to pursue at this time. But if you can leverage your existing skills
and contacts etc, you might be able to get yourself into a niche, and then you
would be set.

Regarding programs, Tekla Structures is the gold standard for detailing steel
structures, but the price is up there (if you're looking at going it alone).
Cheaper options that I haven't used are available from Autodesk for AutoCAD,
and another from Bentley for Microstation. I would look at the Microstation
option first, because the "core" seems to be better for 3D work than AutoCAD.
However, Autodesk does a reasonably priced bundle of programs for the
construction industry, which includes some BIM staples like Navisworks.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Hey mate, thanks for the response.

Yeah, our steel detailers here (seven across two sites) use Tekla Structures
and have it tweaked how our workshops like, and I've got to say it produced
the best drawings I've ever worked with.

Also spits out NC1 files for the laser and beam-line, so we're somewhat
keeping up with the technological advances to stay competitive.

And yeah, I've worked myself in to a pretty good niche here, and it's a bit of
a nice corner to be in at the moment.

I'll continue to observe the playing-field.

Thanks again.

------
prawn
For context, I'm a Guardian reader, not overly partial to mining and love the
Australian outback. The earlier Rio Tinto issue appeared to concern an older
and more significant site. With this BHP case, it's hard to get a real idea of
what sort of heritage sites we're talking about without details/images. If
there were evocative images, I think we'd be seeing them in the article. I
wondered if many in this case are not so much caves as people think of them,
but very small alcoves you could store food in or maybe lie down in. The areas
mined seem flatter than some of the more exciting formations in the northern
WA region that don't make national park designation.

I'm torn because if you need to mine somewhere, remote parts of Australia
might as well be the place. But on the other hand, once you give over these
truly wild areas to development, they're not coming back, especially from
mining.

~~~
olliej
Here the thing, if you sold a bunch of land that contain “just” a 1k year old
European ruin that site would have immediately been protected from destruction
for mining.

~~~
prawn
I can appreciate that. And while evidence of Aboriginal life at some sites
might be scant (age and geology being big factors), I don't think it would be
an insane inconvenience to work around them for many things outside of very
massive operations like mines, even if there are loads of sites.

I suspect the significance of these sites is being overplayed as a negotiating
tactic on the back of the Rio Tinto incident. As it was, one of the
authorities demoted half of the sites.

On the other hand, if there was a broad area of historical interest (heavily
frequented by nomads, or well-preserved), usually it'd be set aside. It's
possible that the best examples already have been.

------
redslazer
While the destruction of these sites is most probably not a good idea and
there is an open question regarding the fairness of native title negotiations
between mining companies and the local indigenous people it should be noted
that:

"They are also unable to raise concerns publicly about the expansion, having
signed comprehensive agreements with BHP as part of a native title settlement.
BHP agreed to financial and other benefits for the Banjima people, while the
Banjima made commitments to support the South Flank project."

From the sounds of it the two parties have agreed to the situation and now one
party is attempting to escape its part of the agreement through the use public
opinion.

~~~
yongjik
If some house in Greece is sitting on the ruins of the classical era, and its
owner sells the house to some mining company, can't people protest the
impending destruction?

It doesn't seem right to treat 15K-year-old archeological sites as sellable
goods. It should belong to Australia and mankind.

~~~
dependenttypes
I think that in some countries at least the moment that an archeological site
is discovered it becomes property of the government.

------
esarbe
How come that places like these are not protected by the government? In other
countries you are barely allowed to tear down houses older than a hundred
years.

~~~
NathanWilliams
Our government, like a lot of our citizens, are racist. (The government is
also beholden to the mining industry...)

Our PM _today_ claimed we didn't have slavery here (in response to the BLM
marches).

Narrator: Australia did have slavery...

------
stubish
Plans are now on hold: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-11/bhp-halts-
aboriginal-...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-11/bhp-halts-aboriginal-
site-destruction-after-rio-tinto-protests/12345566)

I expect this means that even if it goes ahead in the future, the traditional
owners will get a big payout (beyond whatever was signed in 2015)

------
cies
"Australia is unable to protect 15K year old national heritage sites big
mining corp plans to destroy"

As I understand that for the "elders" the money may be more important than the
sites, an for the mining corp the money surely is more important: this needs
to be a matter of national interest.

~~~
roenxi
It isn't a matter of national interest because nobody in the nation is
interested. Nobody has ever heard of or cares about the very similar site that
is 10 km away but not on the mining lease.

------
triggercut
Imagine you had an HDD with every photo you'd ever taken, you have no backups,
this is the only place these memories are stored.

A wealthy individual approaches you and asks if they can buy this HDD off you
for a large amount of money. You don't have a lot of money, your ability to
make money is restricted and your government is always reducing social safety-
nets. This proposition looks like your best chance. The wealthy individual
takes your HDD, holds it for a while and then physically destroys it in front
of you without regard.

But it's fine... Right? It was only some plastic and metal... You can go to
the store and buy a new larger HDD with all your new money.

~~~
roenxi
The wealthy individual in the metaphor is quite up-front that he is buying the
HDD to destroy it, and is more than willing to provide counselling and support
to get you back on your feet.

The alternative in the metaphor is you keep the HDD, suffer financially and
the wealthy person can't become wealthy because these trades are how they make
money. It is worse for everyone.

~~~
andrekandre
i would say that a lot of people/groups in these types of positions dont have
any idea about using money for investment and improvment to get into a more
self-sustaing cycle

instead they use it to "just get by for a while" and theyll be back in the
same position again later...

------
EndXA
It seems that an update has been posted: "BHP agrees not to damage 40
Aboriginal heritage sites without consulting traditional owners"
([https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/jun/11/bhp-a...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/jun/11/bhp-agrees-not-damage-40-aboriginal-heritage-sites-without-
consulting-traditional-owners-pilbara))

------
henearkr
BHP should offer scientific and technical support, as well as time, to study
the sites before they are destructed. If this is done seriously, the cultural
heritage could actually be augmented, by the knowledge, even after the
physical destruction of the sites.

~~~
prawn
Not sure if you read the article, but it mentions BHP offering 3D scanning,
drone imagery, etc to capture digital versions of each location for archive.
Any loose, physical items would be removed to their staff encampment and then
a museum.

~~~
henearkr
I was thinking about even deeper investigation, like DNA sampling, other
chemical analyses in particular in the ground near or inside the sites.

Most often, the real value of having historical sites around is that even
decades later there can be complementary investigations that were not thought
of in the first place.

~~~
prawn
I have no expertise in this area, but my guess is that there would be millions
of sites like this across Australia. Australia is absolutely massive and the
indigenous population has an epic 40-80k years of history here. If you wanted
to preserve everything just in case, no one could move a foot.

I suspect they have preserved the key sites with the best scientific
opportunities or main cultural importance, and that these are much more run of
the mill.

That said, mining companies make buckets of money and I have no issue with
tipping the scales a bit against their convenience and profitability for
something like this.

~~~
henearkr
Yes, it seems like 3D scans and drones are a bit cheap solutions, that would
satisfy or impress some non-expert.

If they do it on a handful of sites, chemical analysis would be a true way to
show their commitment.

------
deviation
The aboriginal elders of that area have already signed and agreed
contractually to monetary benefits and agreed to support BHP's expansion. I'm
aboriginal myself, and I'm sad to see these sites torn down... But as the
traditional land owners, it was their land to sell.

Fair game, though a sad game.

~~~
ascorbic
In England there is a "Schedule of Monuments" to protect nationally important
archeological sites. This is in addition to a much larger number of listed
buildings, which are protected separately. Scheduled sites can be bought and
sold, but any work that could damage them needs permission from Historic
England. There are 20,000 monuments on the list, from Stonehenge to the former
US nuclear missile bunkers at RAF Greenham Common, alongside thousands of
hillforts, burial mounts etc. Doesn't Australia have anything similar?

[https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-
designation/s...](https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-
designation/scheduled-monuments/)

~~~
Mandatum
They do at a state level, but given aboriginal sites aren't buildings
protected by codes and standards - they're gigantic bits of land with
scattered artfacts like stone tools, or trees with markings, or remnants of
old sites.. There's nothing really left.

Think about it like this, if you were in Ireland, there might be a small hill
and that was remnants of a hut. If you excavated it, you might find some stone
from the walls.

But these sites are on a land mass where time doesn't bury sediment over the
top of them very much, so what happens is whatever is left usually just wears
away by the harsh environment.

People want to protect these sites, but none of these sites will have any
visitors for years, decades in some cases. This includes people who live in
the state.

To be fair, there's plenty of work that could be done preserving what's there
and excavating underneath - or land moving the top few meters.. And we could
make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations and land owners
to hide these sites exist in the first place.

Or just move to another remote area to do the same for less profit. But good
luck hurting profit in Australia. That's not a political game you've got a
chance of winning during our life time in this country.

Always was, always will be..

~~~
andrewksl
> And we could make companies do that. But that will just drive organisations
> and land owners to hide these sites exist in the first place.

That really hit home. Sometimes there really are no-win scenarios. Absolutely
tragic that these sites are lost, but there's no practical solution to
preserve them.

~~~
reubenmorais
To say so fatalistically this is a no-win scenario and there's no practical
solution to preserve them is a bit much, I'd say. Countries and states
preserve gigantic bits of land all the time.

In Brazil for example there is a mixed model at the federal level with
national parks and environment protection areas (APAs). National parks are
geared for maximum preservation, the entire area is government property. APAs
are delimited areas with special biologic/historic/cultural value where people
can still own property, live there, and even farm, but activities in the area
are supervised with preservation in mind. It's not a perfect system, but it's
better than nothing, and it can always be worked on.

~~~
hhw
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Brazil currently losing huge tracts of
protected rainforest in those areas, just because of Bolsonaro's politics? How
is he managing to undermine these protections so totally?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/world/americas/brazil-
def...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/world/americas/brazil-
deforestation-amazon-bolsonaro.html)

~~~
reubenmorais
We're all learning in the past few years how quickly institutions can fail
when you have bad faith actors at the highest levels. In this case he can do a
great deal of damage simply by openly being against environmental causes,
because it sends a message that the laws will not be enforced, even before he
started actually dismantling the laws.

------
TheUndead96
This is something worth protesting about.

------
blackrock
.

~~~
el_dev_hell
Shot in the dark: you didn't read the article and reacted to the clickbaity
title?

