The first point that we can establish is that mining itself as a landuse influences a minute area of land. The area is so trivial that there are no national estimates of its size. Therefore no matter what mining does to the land involved, the amount involved is absolutely inconsequential, and relatively insignificant compared with the areal extent of the other landuses we have considered.

Nonetheless, the influence of mining on landcover should not be so readily dismissed. Several aspects of the issue need to be explored further.

The first aspect stems from the evolutionary history of any mining operation. The first stage of mining is exploration, the second stage is some proof-of-concept activity. The third stage is production, with the fourth stage being rehabilitation and abandonment.

The first stage - exploration - can be very intensive or very extensive depending upon the nature of the target mineral. In the case of metalliferous mining, the patterns of surface exploration are generally intensive, ie. measured in kilometres. In contrast, the activities associated with petroleum exploration are usually very extensive, ie. measured in tens of kilometres.

The establishment (by clearing) of gun barrel-straight seismic lines was until very recently not subject to regulation by state agencies. The impact of these 'shot lines' on the overall landcover of the area was not considered important because the total area involved was very small. Also, these seismic access roads are common only in the arid Outback, far removed from public scrutiny.