Purpose of this website
To bring to an end the “minimum compliance strategy” introduced by the Queensland Government in 1977 to benefit the (Special Agreement Act) East End limestone mine.
In 1995 Cabinet reinforced the commitment via an incentive package, complete with environmental clearances for a $220M expansion to encourage QCL to relocate their Brisbane / Moreton Bay activities to the Gladstone Region.
In 2004, Section 251 (4) of the EP Act 1994 was enacted to empower public servants with discretion to amend an Environmental Authority while prohibiting public objections against the original component of an EA (that could otherwise be shown to be grossly inadequate).
This 2004 legislation, shields the East End Mine and other mining operations with accumulative impacts from liability and public accountability.…. click for documentary proof of Cabinet’s 1995 binding commitment to the East End Mine that was kept hidden from us while we participated in administrative charades.
The Present
The mine is established and surface and underground water impacts are entrenched. For 30 years the mine has discharged our precious water downstream as waste…..our canary.
The water monitoring scheme is commonly agreed to be out of date and unable to adequately fulfil its intended function, huge chunks of mine pit water discharges are missing from the records so that it is not possible to construct a water balance or to calculate aquifer permeability or storability values.
In the absence of this crucial data, over 40 hydrology studies (and two models) since 1995 has been unable to reach common agreement as to the full extent of the mine’s impacts.
EEMAG through its liaison with four dissenting internationally recognised hydrologists have driven much of the research, however, the community remains disadvantaged and bears the burden of a conservative prognosis protected by no avenue of appeal.
While the mine and its regulators get off virtually scott free, “minimum compliance” removes any incentive for the company to embrace world’s best practice, to remediate impacts on a district basis, to fully meet their obligations under “make good” provisions or to equitably settle with their affected community.
Meanwhile, the chronically affected East End aquifer trends ever-lower while Bracewell limestone oscillates within a much lower range than pre-mining with a constant recharge shortfall.
“Minimum compliance”, has been a disaster for our farming community and the environment.
Main stream media are not interested in our plight, so we are down to self help and whatever leverage this website can exert. We feel obligated to relate our experiences so others may learn how things really are, so that they can better protect their own interests (and hopefully express indignation that brings change to how farmer’s rights are traded off to benefit mining
EEMAG's Message to QLD Cabinet
We have documentary proof of Cabinet’s unfair and discriminatory “minimum compliance strategy” for the East End Mine and how the failure of mining regulation has permitted our rural community and environment to be stuffed up.
Cease “minimum compliance!” Stop protecting the East End Mine and allow Cement Australia’s 2009 application for a new mining lease to run its natural administrative course with an EIS that includes meaningful input from affected stakeholders and their hydrologists.
Require the best available science to be used in a hydro geological assessment that properly evaluates current and future dewatering impacts on the karst limestone aquifer system.
Allow unfettered public objections before the Land Court so that the East End mine’s new application and falsely assessed Environmental Authority (EA) is impartially examined and properly decided on factual circumstances, rather than by issuing an amendment that perpetuates the mine’s grossly unrepresentative EA.
What we have achieved.
EEMAG’s achievements are very modest and all out of proportion with the time, effort, money and energy expended. However, over 20 landholders have benefited from “make good” replacement water supplies. This “success” has been hard won for it has mostly been like pulling teeth.
EEMAG’s greatest feat is to have survived as an organisation against the odds and concerted political and company opposition. Aided immeasurably by our technical support team EEMAG has persevered to provide local knowledge and cutting edge hydrogeology and to act as the administrative conscience throughout this debate. The generous contributions of time and moral support from technical and legal advisors has been fundamental to this outcome. May their efforts ultimately be rewarded by recognition that they not only supported a just cause but were correct in their technical assessment.
