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.