Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5220|Sydney
A transcript.

Record dinosaur print found in Kimberley

MARK COLVIN: A palaeontologist may just have discovered the world's biggest dinosaur footprint in Australia. The scientist, working on WA's Kimberley coast, has uncovered what he believes to be a sauropod print measuring an astonishing 1.7 metres long.

The fossil is embedded in rock at James Price Point, within the proposed precinct for the world's biggest liquefied natural gas project.

Winsome Denyer reports.

GUIDE: Over here, look at this one, it's giant.

WINSOME DENYER: It's a unique glimpse into an ancient ecosystem, unmatched anywhere in the world.

STEVE SALISBURY: See, I reckon that's a trackway, just that one, and this is a second one.

WINSOME DENYER: Palaeontologist Dr Steve Salisbury, guided by local Aboriginal elders and dinosaur enthusiasts, has been scouring the rocky terrain of James Price Point in Western Australia for the past 12 months.

They're researching and documenting 130-million-year-old dinosaur tracks. Recently, the group found something big - possibly the biggest dinosaur footprint on earth.

STEVE SALISBURY: That's large, a large footprint.

WINSOME DENYER: What Dr Salisbury found was a 1.7-metre print of a sauropod, a giant brachiosaurus-like herbivore.

STEVE SALISBURY: You can actually see where the wet sand has bulged up around the edges of the track. And it's eroded a little bit, but it is a footprint. This is the original surface that the animal walked upon and it's immense, it was pretty exciting to find it.

WINSOME DENYER: The group had passed the site before, but storms and severe weather have exposed the fossils, making them easier to identify.

STEVE SALISBURY: With some of these gigantic sauropod footprints, I mean, they're beyond what your search image is for a footprint. I mean, you know, you walk past them, they're the size of a bathtub. You don't initially think that it could be a footprint.

WINSOME DENYER: The team is now going through the formalities of having the discovery made official. The largest dinosaur footprint recorded until now is in France, measuring 1.5 metres.

STEVE SALISBURY: We know that in the southern continents in Gondwana, around this time in the Cretaceous, there were really big dinosaurs.

In South America we've got at least two giant sauropods that probably exceeded around 35 metres in length, and the animal that made these tracks at Broome was probably that big, if not bigger.

So they were here, and they walked around north of Broome, and their tracks are preserved in the stone at James Price Point.

WINSOME DENYER: James Price Point may harbour the world's largest dinosaur footprint, but it may also become home to one of world's largest proposed gas hub developments. The project to be developed by Woodside has proved divisive, opposed by members of the local community and environmentalists.

But the West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, says the LNG plant is a win for the region. In July, the WA Environmental Protection Agency recommended Woodside's proposal proceed, with strict conditions.

The State Government has since received more than 200 appeals to that decision, which are now being reviewed. The State Government says it's inappropriate to comment while the appeals process is underway.

Woodside won't make a final investment decision until the first half of next year. In a statement, the company says:

WOODSIDE STATEMENT (voiceover): The studies to date show there are a series of separate locations along the 200-kilometre stretch of the Dampier Peninsula that have dinosaur footprints and trackways that vary in intensity and quality.

In response to studies undertaken by the WA Museum and two internationally recognised palaeontologists, the port facilities for the LNG precinct will be constructed in an area to avoid the identified dinosaur footprints.

We believe that the proposed Browse LNG development can successfully coexist with the heritage values of the Dampier Peninsula.

WINSOME DENYER: Dr Salisbury fears that even with strict conditions, development in the area could lead to the loss of the ancient dinosaur footprints.

STEVE SALISBURY: It will be under sand if the development goes ahead, regardless of how careful they are during the construction process.

WINSOME DENYER: The entire coastline is currently listed as National Heritage, protected for its cultural significance to the local Aboriginal people.

STEVE SALISBURY: We have to decide now, and the Western Australian Government and the Federal Government need to decide, what's more important, spectacular fossil evidence of some of the biggest animals to have ever walked the planet, or a $35 billion gas processing plant?

MARK COLVIN: Palaeontologist Dr Steve Salisbury from the University of Queensland ending that report from Winsome Denyer. And you can watch that discovery on ABC TV's Catalyst program at 8pm tonight on ABC1.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3604118.htm

I'm in two minds about this.

$35 billion is without question a lot of money, and would clearly benefit the Australian economy. With the resources boom coming to an end this is certainly a way for the economy to help transition into alternatives. However, a palaeontological find like this is extremely historical, and no doubt any development in the region would put future finds at risk. The coast is also world heritage listed for the traditional land owners.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6147|eXtreme to the maX
Australian manufacturers depend upon reliable supplies of energy and resources, priced competitively, in order to manufacture a range of vital commodities.

Despite being in abundance, access to domestic sources of gas by local manufacturers is often made difficult by policy confusion, perverse incentives for international competitors and pricing uncertainty or inconsistency. It's a shortsighted energy policy that favours sending our abundant natural resources overseas at the lowest point in their value chain, while other nations reap the benefits of adding value to our resources.

James Fazzino, MD and CEO of Incitec Pivot, says he sees no reason why we can't have a vibrant LNG industry on the back of a re-invigorated manufacturing industry, and also have some of the gas available for electricity generation.

We have ended up in this curious situation where all the gas on the east coast of Australia is going to be exported.

He says government on both sides must recognise that the gas belongs to the Australian people, and ensure we end up with a balanced outcome with a certain amount set aside for local use; for consumers and manufacturers rather than just for export.

"Australia needs to look at its sustainable competitive advantages and exploit those advantages.

"If you look at China, their advantage has been cheap labour, but expensive energy. We can have competitive energy and expensive labour."

Fazzino says the mistake we make is believing that the global gas market is not a free or fair market. He points out that Australia has allowed four global gas majors to take all the gas and export it.

However, in the US for example, President Obama has said he will keep the vast majority of its gas on-shore and is going to build manufacturing off the back of it. He has a vision of creating 600,000 new manufacturing jobs from the gas industry.

The US has this endowment and is leveraging it to create jobs.

One major difference between the US and here is that the US has around 3000 gas suppliers, while we have four multinationals who monopolise the industry and sell it offshore; they clearly don't have Australia's best interests at heart, only their shareholders.

At the moment, Incitec Pivot is considering building an ammonia plant somewhere in the world. Fazzino says the location hasn't been decided yet, it could be the US, but he guarantees it won't happen in Australia. The difference, he says, is the supply and the price of gas; "the value proposition".

He points out that if you take gas offshore, for example, you increase its value by three to four times. However if the company produces a complex emulsion for explosives, for example, its value is increased by 20 times.

And if you do that everyone wins; the government gets more tax and you build that balanced economy and all the benefits of local manufacturing.

"Our rule of thumb is for every $1 we spend in the plant, there is another $4 we spend in the local community."

Pollies understand the problem, but they struggle with a solution. The problem is there is no silver bullet, yet.

This is about creating well paid, highly skilled jobs in the economy and being able to pay for that via our birthright in this country, cheap energy - so Australia can have its cake and eat it too.
http://www.manmonthly.com.au/news/comme … lng-for-us

We can give it away for short term gain, or potentially reap 20x the benefit, but then Aus industry has always been poor at adding value.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6734
Some bullshit
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,974|6673|949

what's some bullshit?
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6734
If the multinationals weren't selling off all of eastern Australia's methane, would this proposed intrusion of a world heritage site even be a thought?
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6722|Disaster Free Zone
Considering this world heritage site is almost the size of Texas, and we have uranium mines in other world heritage sites, I'd say, yes it definitely would have been thought of.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,974|6673|949

according to the internet that site (James Price Point) isn't within the world heritage site.
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6734
I was just going off of whatever dilbert posted. If it's the case that being a heritage site doesn't protect that site from being dicked around, why bother pretending that you give a shit about Abos or dinosaurs?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5399|London, England

Superior Mind wrote:

I was just going off of whatever dilbert posted. If it's the case that being a heritage site doesn't protect that site from being dicked around, why bother pretending that you give a shit about Abos or dinosaurs?
It makes people like you feel better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6734
Tool
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5399|London, England

Superior Mind wrote:

Tool
I still love that band after all these years. Maynard is a wordsmith.

In all seriousness though, what is the actual point in setting aside millions of acres of land for a national park or a heritage site or whatever? We have vast parts of our country that are set aside for what exactly? So some tourists can come in and take pictures? I'm not saying we fill in the Grand Canyon or plug Old Faithful or anything like that, but the laws that set up these things shouldn't be death pacts. A plan like this would clearly help Australians as a whole. Leaving a few dinosaur prints in the sand for a handful of people to see over the years is kind of silly by comparison. Take a plaster casting, or dig up the sandstone it's enshrined in and take it to a museum. The idea of wilderness areas and national parks and heritage sites is a very nice one, but most of the people who make the argument that they need to be protected at all costs never actually get off their couch to go visit them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,974|6673|949

Jay do you think every square inch of land should be open to development/private purchase?  I don't.  I understand the importance of preserving certain habitats and historically significant sites.

Who cares if most people who make the argument don't get off their couch?  That has literally no weight in the debate.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5399|London, England
I think the possibility should be there, yeah. My dad was really big into preserving Civil War battlefields when I was a kid. He'd write letters, visit the sites, write articles for magazines etc. Looking at it today as an adult, I can still understand his desire to preserve those sites in a way that allows people to view those battlefields in a similar light to what they appeared to be 150 years ago. It was cool walking around Gettysburg and seeing Devil's Den and Little Round Top and everything else that I'd read about in history books. The problem with his thinking, and the group of people that he was in agreement with, was that they wanted to preserve all Civil War sites, no matter how small and inane. I'm sorry, but people live in those places. Restricting their homes to a certain height so you can't see them from your precious battlefield is just plain dick. You have to pick and choose, trying to preserve everything is a great way to make people ignore you across the board.

Stuff like this has cultural significance and is akin to preserving certain buildings that represent innovation in architecture or structural design. I just think that a large segment of conservationists are far too heavy handed in their approach and seem to literally want to stop all progress. Every time you try to build a new building these days you have fifty groups butting in making sure you 'maintain the present architecture style' or that you do studies on the flight patterns of migratory birds or bats. Hell, environmentalists were up in arms about that solar project in the middle of the California desert because it was going to impact the habitat of a handful of tortoises.

The idea of pristine habitats is largely a silly one in my eyes. Everything evolves. Coastlines change. Mountains rise and fall. Setting aside an area the size of Texas and saying 'no, you can never do anything here' serves no one. It's nice having parks set aside, they just have to make sense.

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-04 11:21:49)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5627

Restricting their homes to a certain height so you can't see them from your precious battlefield is just plain dick.
Free market. Get a house somewhere else .
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5220|Sydney

Jay wrote:

My dad was really big into preserving Civil War battlefields when I was a kid. He'd write letters, visit the sites, write articles for magazines etc. Looking at it today as an adult, I can still understand his desire to preserve those sites in a way that allows people to view those battlefields in a similar light to what they appeared to be 150 years ago. It was cool walking around Gettysburg and seeing Devil's Den and Little Round Top and everything else that I'd read about in history books. The problem with his thinking, and the group of people that he was in agreement with, was that they wanted to preserve all Civil War sites, no matter how small and inane.
Getting back to the dinosaur prints, this is where I have issue. It's not like they just found some fossils and are trying to use that to halt progress of a resource operation, this has real historical significance and could tell palaeontologists more about our world millions of years ago. Yes the financial benefit to the economy is something to consider but sometimes things like this make me wonder if we're just ripping up everything for the sake of a relatively quick dollar and leaving little for future generations.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6452|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:

Restricting their homes to a certain height so you can't see them from your precious battlefield is just plain dick.
Free market. Get a house somewhere else .
Actually, that would be the opposite of a free market.

Just sayin'.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard