Drill log samples |
Cement Australia’s land bank and creeping acquisition policy Through their continuous dewatering practices, attitude of attrition and expansionist plans Cement Australia periodically purchases properties and leave housing mostly vacant rather than remediate environmental impacts. (The company is not required to rectify a failed water supply on their land.) Cement Australia has a dominating community presence and an advantageous bargaining position in their dealings with individual landholders experiencing problems or those seeking to agist stock on their land. Cement Australia’s land bank of over 2000 ha has fragmentised Mt Larcom’s Good Quality Agricultural Land while their impacts and creeping acquisition policy represents a very real threat to those wishing to remain.…. The only good news is that competition for land in the Gladstone Region has become so intense that even the once shunned (damaged goods) 80 acre blocks at Mt Larcom have risen in value and the company has to pay more to acquire such properties for rural residential purposes. |
| Drilling deeper replacement bores impractical
In 1996 Cement Australia belatedly drilled the first replacement bore under “make good” provisions to less than 50 metres. Some of these now failed replacement bores and other new claimants have recently had replacement bores drilled to 100 metres or more. Landholders who have been discouraged or controversially deemed not to be affected by mine dewatering by the Chief Executive Officer have also had to drill deeper bores and bear the brunt of high failure rates and poorer water quality coupled with much greater installation and operating costs. Drilling deeper bores as a “make good” option would seem to have outlived its usefulness and reached the stage of impracticality.
|
Susidence in a depleated aquifer
|
 |
East End Mine Community Consultative Forum: Is comprised principally of members of local sporting and community organisations that benefit through corporate donations. Tellingly, neither EEMAG or any of its members have been invited and are not represented. |
Composition of hydrogeology study team: |
|
EEMAG’s submission to the Draft TOR requested that the EIS Study Team incorporate practitioners of known karst aquifer experience and qualifications, and use the best available science. It is confirmed that the chosen consultant has only limited karst aquifer experience. Based on our experiences, EEMAG is entitled to be very wary about the EIS process, and regard it as a bit tricky. The consultants who do the EIS are selected and paid for by the applicant. We consider that this is not an independent assessment of the issues. The consultant’s brief is to produce an EIS that will satisfy the regulators that the proposed project should proceed |
