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.
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.
The practical realities associated with aquifer recharges of 2010 and 2011.
The water monitoring scheme is presently being updated.
The recharge event of 2010 has given the best possible indication of the true extent of the mine’s impacts.
Pre-mining, local aquifers behaved as a single unit. The alluvium, and limestone aquifers were so seamlessly integrated as to be indistinguishable while the volcaniclastics was of such low permeability as to not rate as an aquifer. There were no delayed responses with one part of the district recovering in advance of, or in isolation of another. 125 to 150mm of rain, was enough to make all the springs and creeks run surpluses and for fish to fight their way up normally dry gullies to farm dams. Full aquifer or near full aquifer status was the norm and occurred so regularly that this good fortune was taken for granted.
Under drought conditions, some creeks dried up or back to waterholes fed by seepages from the limestone while others remained permanent; several well documented springs remained perennial under all conditions, including even the severest droughts.
Since dewatering commenced at the East End Mine in 1979, East End has never had a full aquifer recovery. Bracewell has had just two in 33 years. One was in 1991 and the other in late 2010.
In their 1998 Position paper DPI Water Resources compared local 1991 aquifer levels with pre-mining levels to verify that Bracewell was fully recharged and that East End was not. The 1991 recharge shortfall at East End was thus determined as a mine impact over a 20 sq kilometre area.
This methodology is considered foolproof as long as the “control area” is local and truly unaffected by mining.
So how does the East End recharge shortfall in 1991 compare with recharge shortfall at East End in 2011? Using original observation bore 03 (characteristic of the East End limestone aquifer) as a barometer, at its recharge peak in March 1991 and in March 2011, Bore 03 was 13.18 m lower in 2011.
It is instructive to compare the pattern of the 1991 Bracewell recharge with that of 2010 as there are striking similarities in the way the recharges occurred.
Consecutive above average rainfall years in 1988, 1989 and 1990 culminated in flooding early in 1991. This early 1991 flooding on top of previous accumulations brought Bracewell to full recharge in March 1991.
By comparison, 2008 reverted to a strong summer wet in an average year, 2009 also had a good summer wet season in a below average year, while 2010’s extreme summer rain early in 2010 fully recharged Cedar Vale in isolation of Bracewell. Intense December 2010 rain led to the second highest yearly rainfall on record and bought Bracewell to full recharge in December 2010.
The pattern …. for full recovery at Bracewell on both occasions ……. steady progressive accumulative water level rises over the period of a few years (as verified by the water monitoring results) coupled with ……. concentrated rainfall that climaxed in full aquifer recharge.
Clearly, recovery at Bracewell is a product of getting sufficient rainfall so that recharge accumulates faster than mine drawdown. Demonstrably full recharges on both occasions was achieved on the back of progressive rises climaxed by intense rainfall to bring about the final phase of full recharge.
The “practical reality” of Cedar Vale staging a full recharge some 8 or 9 months in advance of Bracewell means that Bracewell, is of course, mine affected as EEMAG and its experts have always maintained, and, for the record, Bracewell may have also been similarly affected, although to a lesser degree in 1991.
So, will mine affects upon Bracewell finally be recognised? Probably not! There are insufficient monitoring bores at Cedar Vale and on that basis it is unlikely the Company, Government and its Regulators will accept local knowledge and observations of local residents as an accurate gauge
Will the Courts? Maybe. We will try.
“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.
