Senator Nettle has tonight elevated Greenpeace's claims regarding Silex's uranium enrichment research work to a new art form.
Notwithstanding the ASX announcement of 25/11 which challenged and denounced the claims made by Greenpeace, Nettle has sought to ignore those comments in pursuit of a ban on Silex's uranium enrichment research work.
Some of Greenpeace's claims went way beyond that of a concerned environmentalist and into the realm of internal interference for a malicious purpose.In particular, claims 2, 3 and 4, whilst claim 1 was fundamentally misleading. Claim 5 is mischievious.
It will, therefore, be interesting to see just how much traction Nettle gets in repeating those claims under the guise of Parliamentary Privilege.
For the record, here are Greenpeace's claims and Silex's response to those claims.
For my part, the current behaviour of the minorities and independents goes to the very heart of what democracy is not about - abuse of power.
As much as these forces accuse the Government of excesses of power (and judges and the media point to the dangers of "absolute" power), they then go off and practice the same thing for themselves (ie: embarassment, single minded agendas, unfounded allegations, they're right even when the evidence points to the contrary, lack of accountability, etc).
No wonder sometimes the best form of democracy is a junta. Mind you, where are the Greens in criticising the extension of Ang's house arrest in Myanmar? Not much being said there!!!
Greenpeace has recently published a series of claims regarding Silex Systems.
Our response to specific issues is as follows:
1. Greenpeace Claim - Unclear Relationships: Silex Systems hasn’t adequately explained to its shareholders the exact nature of its financial, legal and regulatory relationships with ANSTO. It has also not adequately explained the implications of these arrangements on the future of the company.
Silex Response: • The Silex and ANSTO relationship is and has always been strictly an ‘arms length’ commercial relationship. • Silex is simply a tenant on the Lucas Heights laboratory site. • Occasionally Silex uses ANSTO engineering for contract work on strictly commercial terms. • Absolutely no technology transfer has ever occurred between ANSTO and Silex.
Silex purchased some surplus laboratory equipment from ANSTO in the mid-90’s, again on commercial terms. • The SILEX Technology is completely different to the ANSTO technology terminated in 1994 (at least as much as is known about it). • The only financial support received from the Australian Government was a $2.64M START R&D Grant awarded competitively in 2000, specifically for the SILEX Silicon Enrichment Project (completed in 2003). The SILEX Silicon Enrichment technology is fundamentally different to the SILEX Uranium Enrichment technology and can’t be used for uranium enrichment in any way. No government funding support has ever been provided for the SILEX uranium project.
2. Greenpeace Claim - Undisclosed Potential Liabilities: Silex Systems hasn’t disclosed to its shareholders potential significant liabilities relating to nuclear waste disposal, the transport of nuclear materials and the risk of nuclear accidents.
Silex Response: • Silex has disclosed all liabilities required by law and the ASX. • Greenpeace is trying to confuse the nuclear waste issue. • Front end (fuel production) low level waste is completely different to back end (nuclear reactor) high level waste. Uranium enrichment is a front end process. • Silex activities and processes do not generate any high level ‘nuclear waste’, transport issues or any risk of nuclear accidents.
2 • The only nuclear material used by Silex is low enriched UF6 – with no significant radioactivity or waste risks. • Over its entire history, Silex has only ever possessed a total of less than 10kg low enriched UF6 – sufficient for R&D purposes. • The only waste generated is a very small amount of gloves, tissue paper, other low level contaminated handling articles. There is no other waste. • Silex consults with regulatory authorities with regard to future disposal – this is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
3. Greenpeace Claim - Limits to Expansion: Silex Systems hasn’t alerted itsshareholders to the significant regulatory, legal and social hurdles faced by the proposed next stage of expansion, the construction of a pilot plant.
Silex Response: • Silex has consistently kept the market and shareholders informed of all the regulatory and legal obligations regarding Lucas Heights activities. • There are no regulatory, legal or social hurdles which limit further expansion of Silex activities. • Silex has stated that a Pilot Plant would most likely be built in the US. • Silex enjoys a full, open and cooperative relationship with all regulatory authorities.
4. Greenpeace Claim - Commercially Unviable: Silex Systems hasn’t informed its shareholders of the growing global rejection of laser enrichment technology, as nuclear powers such as the US, France and Japan, abandon their laser enrichment research as unviable.
Silex Response: • There is no global rejection of laser enrichment technology. • The nuclear power industry (which includes enrichment) is enjoying a world-wide public renaissance in response to growing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. • Laser enrichment programs in US, France, Japan etc (all based on the AVLIS process) were abandoned on economic grounds. • The SILEX Technology is fundamentally completely different to the AVLIS process and has a real chance of success.
5. Greenpeace Claim - Links to Proliferation: If successful, the Silex technology may contribute to nuclear proliferation, by making the enrichment of uranium less technically complex and less capital-intensive.
Silex Response: • SILEX technology is now and always will be heavily regulated by Australian and US Government authorities to avoid any proliferation issues. • Clandestine proliferators will always head for centrifuge technology (as proven on several occasions previously). Laser technology is far more difficult and technically challenging to implement, but if successful, offers superior economics.
Proliferators are not interested in economics. • SILEX Technology does not contribute to nuclear proliferation.
SLX Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)