Why Jim Leggate’s and EEMAG’s collective mining experiences are relevant to coal mining and the coal seam gas debate.

Jim Leggate is a former industry consultant and Environmental Compliance Officer within the Qld Department of Mines. As such he had a broad, insider’s overview of the mining industry and its regulation. When the unofficial policy of soft regulation towards Mining meant that he could no longer uphold regulatory standards and function in conscience as an effective compliance officer, he made representations to his superiors. When they did not act, Jim went public with his whistleblower concerns and was ultimately dismissed.  Jim retains a constant interest in his chosen field of expertise and continues to campaign to expose, educate and bring to an end the unofficial policy of non-enforcement that remains so deeply embedded in the Qld mining industry.

DIRECT MESSAGE FROM JIM LEGGATE

To the farmers and graziers of Surat, Chinchilla etc  -  my message is -  “When
Premier Bligh, Minister Burke and others attempt to re-assure you that the
authorities will regulate Gas and Coal companies to ensure operating
conditions are complied with - DO NOT BELIEVE THEM OR TRUST THEM. “

Based on experiences, my advice is that the best time to protect your
rights as landholders is *now.*

Make a stand *now* UNITE the various protest groups and forces for change - before this industry builds any more infrastructure. Once the big plant is constructed - a plant which will cost billions of dollars – it will have a big appetite for more and more gas and * there will be no stopping it.* Nothing will be allowed to stand in its way – even if it breaks all the promises and operating conditions, even when it breaks the
law. IT WILL BE TOO BIG TO FAIL- just like the big open cut mines down the
road from the gas fields  -  just like a pulp mill  -  just like the big banks overseas that taxpayers had to bail out! *Once it is operating there* *will be no justice for land- holders*.

Just as it has been before in Queensland, the resources industry and the
government will stop at nothing to keep the gas flowing. We were all told
about strip mining for coal in Central Queensland 30-40 years ago -  same
story, from a big overseas company promising rehabilitation to  “even
better grazing than before mining”. Well – go and have a look at the
thousands of hectares of waste land – either a mountain of toxic / hazardous
waste, or else a big black hole in the ground!   ---- and let me tell you
how this scandal was all covered up by deliberate lies and untruths – lies
even in our country’s courtrooms  -  lies from government, and lies even
from the CJC.

Believe me, the Queensland government talks tough - but it has never been
tough on mining companies. Just the opposite. It has been so soft on mining
companies it has left itself wide open to:

   - Official misconduct,                                             
   - Perjury, and
   - Unfair dismissal charges.

I am holding evidence to substantiate all these allegations and am happy to
discuss it with anyone who asks. In order to establish my credentials let me
give an example of the evidence that gives me such confidence.

I have attached extracts from a 1997 Commission of Inquiry
into mining related matters – official  transcript of proceedings pages 8712
– 8716. The Hon. Mr Timothy Carmody S.C, an eminent Queensland legal expert,
on the top of page 8715 quotes an old common law offence of misfeasance in
public office – “any person who being employed in the Public Service does
or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of his office, any
arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another, is guilty of a
misdemeanour ”

MESSAGE TO THE MINING INDUSTRY

The stance of this website is not anti-development but rather espouses a genuine belief that equitable co-existence in mutual best interests is an achievable goal. SO LONG AS YOU ARE MAKING RECORD PROFITS THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR A LACK OF CARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S RESOURCES.

The obvious stand-off and alienation of landholders / stakeholders in the coal and CSG industry is directly attributable to past mining indiscretions and the undignified dash for cash approach adopted by both the Resource Industry and its Regulators.  

The modus-operandi of CAPTURE has alienated fair-minded reasonable people.
My advice to resources companies is:-

   - You have squandered and abused trust and good will,
   - You have alienated many ethical professional people and stakeholders who refuse                   
      to be captured
   - enlightened stakeholders who understand they have much to lose can no longer
      tolerate your intimidation, spin, and dishonesty;
   - The voluntary way forward from here is for Industry to adopt a reform agenda; to     
   lead by example so as to earn and regain trust. I invite the Industry to candidly  
   revisit the past years of capture in Queensland and to confront and move beyond  
   that reality in an accountable manner.

Click for extract of official transcript of Court proceedings 8712 - 8716

Submission Wagwater Whistleblower Action Qld Inc

Jim Leggate’s 1991 recommendations re proposed changes to the mining industry

Jim Leggate to 1995 Senate Select Committee Unresolved Whistleblower Cases

In 1997 the CJC failed to act on mining misconduct and so EEMAG landholders, and many other victims all over Queensland, have suffered harm and injustice as a result.

EEMAG is the living embodiment of such long term system abuse and to their credit have documented clearly, for any fair-minded reader, that the non-enforcement of Queensland legislation has prejudiced their rights as land holders.

The 30 July 1999 Whistleblowers Action Group (Qld) Inc (WAG) Submission to the House of Representatives Inquiry into Catchment Management dovetails with EEMAG’s documented evidence of failure of Regulatory processes to properly protect either the environment or affected landholders. The WAG document was published on the web for that Inquiry as sub118-e.pdf(application/ pdf Object).  

The WAG submission states that “There is an enormous long term problem in the management of catchments in Queensland, caused by non-enforcement of environmental regulations governing the mining industry.”  It documents that Connolly and Ryan, in 1996 / 7, conducted an Inquiry into, inter alia, the effectiveness of the CJC in dealing with this matter. Counsel assisting the Connolly/Ryan Inquiry concluded that there was prima facie evidence of official misconduct that could have been investigated. The CJC accepted during argument before that Inquiry that a policy of non-enforcement existed, but argued that the policy did not constitute official misconduct because the non-enforcement policy had been well publicised.  In spite of this admission, the two principal parties to the matter – the Department of Mines and the Queensland Mining Council – both denied and continue to deny any non-enforcement. The inquiry into mining practices that Justice Matthews recommended to the CJC has never been conducted.

The WAG Submission  I.e. Jim Leggate’s evidence is reinforced by EEMAG’s experiences / FOI  Documents and related Reports such as the October 2003 Mt Larcom Community Restoration Project Report which states on Page 48  “While the evidence of shonky dealing during the 1990’s may be regarded as outdated and no longer relevant to today’s ‘enlightened’ policies, there is evidence that the problem of ‘capture’ of departmental officers by mining companies, through compliant senior bureaucrats, has not been overcome.”  The CRP Report’s statement that “The earlier allegations against departments responsible for legal compliance with mining conditions remain much the same today” refers to Jim Leggate’s August 1991 evidence and Copy of Hansard  Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, March 1995, Pages 439, 443 and 444 as attached.

The Doctoral Thesis “Industry/Community Relationships in Critical Industrial Developments” (Hoppe 2005) in Chapter 9 revealed the Queensland Government’s 1977 covert commitment to “minimum compliance” for the [Special Agreement Act] East End Mine project and an ongoing defence strategy of earlier East End Mine decision-making by government regulating agencies spanning over 3 decades.

On 15 May 1995 DPI Water Resources stated in writing that for 15 years between 1980 and 1995 water monitoring data collected by the East End Mine had not been analysed and QCL were directed to prepare a hydrology assessment. (Such non compliance breached the analysis, compiling of reports and dissemination of information requirements of the Special Conditions on which landholder make good entitlements relied.) However preparation of this hydrology report was overtaken by events when the Qld Government declined to renew Queensland Cement Limited’s leases for dredging of coral in Moreton Bay and offered an incentive package to relocate their expanded presence to Gladstone. The $220 M proposed Gladstone expansion included trebling of mine production, a 24 km railway connection and replacement kiln at Fisherman’s landing.
 
The hydrology report became a politically expedient but falsely benchmarked report within the 1996 IAS. Although the Report identified widespread depletion around the East End Mine it falsely apportioned the blame upon drought with findings of little or no off-lease mine dewatering impacts.

In a climate where a State election was pending, fast tracked negotiations with the Co-ordinator General’s Office for QCL’s Gladstone expansion proceeded at a cracking pace.

FOI of Queensland Cement Limited facsimile to Co-ordinator General’s Office 14 June, 1995, Quote: “Subject QCL Gladstone Expansion : Critical Issues. As requested at our meeting of 8/6/95, we have identified the critical issues for the project from QCL’s perspective.
Item 5. “Obtaining some form of guarantee on mining lease renewals so as to assure QCL’s shareholder that there are adequate, secure, approved raw material reserves.   
Item 7. “Guaranteeing the status quo remains with regard to environmental licenses on current operations.” 

Under FOI 21 September 1995 from QCL to Co-ordinator General quote:
“Firstly, regarding acceptance of an EMOS and Plan of Operations for the proposed operation at East End, we have been assured in writing that, if appropriate, this would be done by 1 December 1995 if QCL submitted the documents by mid-October.”

FOI of Department of Minerals and Energy facsimile 29/09/95 Page 3 states: EMOS and Environmental Approvals “….As discussed with Mr McDonald and Mr Upton this week the EMOS will use the IAS segment on groundwater impacts rather than a separate study.  This availability of the ground water study data will be a factor in finalising the EMOS for the expanded activity by 1 December 1995.” 

FOI of Coordinator General to Premiers Office dated 1 November 1995 quote, “In decision 04763 Cabinet on the 14 August 1995 Cabinet agreed to a package of support if QCL proceeded with the Gladstone expansion.” The incentive package included a commitment to trebling of mine production without a public objection process and with environmental approvals unchanged.

DPI Water Resources were excluded as an Advisory Body to the 1995 IAS until the community learned of their omission and insisted upon their participation.
 

INDUSTRY NON-COMPLIANCE MORE ENTRENCHED THAN EVER!

If anything since 1995, minimum compliance has become more entrenched and with mining’s environmental footprint dwarfing that of the past, Legatte’s warnings are even more relevant today. Using EEMAG’s experiences as a yardstick, such claims are borne out by how the mine’s current unrepresentative of impact Environmental Authority remains fixed on an inaccurate 1996 IAS Study despite:

• a 2002 amendment to the East End Mine’s Environmental Authority that  required 2003 retrospective legislation to make it legal;
• in 2006 an amendment to the Environmental Authority for the East End Mine relied upon Section 251 (4) of the EP Act 1994 (that prohibits public objections against an original EA) to preserve the1996 IAS connection due to EPA’s assessment failing to take into account officially recognised studies with findings of 33 sq kms of off-lease mine dewatering impacts.

Currently the East End Mine is conducting an EIS for mining lease application 80156 and has applied to amend their Environmental Authority. DERM has advised in writing of their intention to issue an amendment when it is abundantly clear that a new Environmental Authority with full and unhindered objections before the Land Court is the only accountable way forward. The disgraced 1996 IAS hydrology section has been superseded by some 40 hydrology studies, the most recent being a 2011 Departmental study identifying 50 sq kms of off-lease mine dewatering impacts.

EAST END MINE APPLIES TO INCREASE PUMPING RATES TO 30 MEGALITRES A DAY!

In March 2011 Cement Australia applied for a Transitional Environmental Program (TEP) to increase their mine water discharge (as waste, no recycling options in the Smart State or by the Company whose rhetoric advocates World’s Best Practice!)  from the existing 6 ML/D and (10 ML/D under recharge conditions while conductivity remained below 1500 us/ Cm) to a maximum of 30 ML/D. The TEP of 28 March 2011 approves variable levels of mine discharge based on the volume of the receiving stream flow coupled with more generous contamination parameters until 17 June 2011.

Unlike coal mines mostly inundated by overland flow, conductivity levels in the East End Mine confirm inflow is mostly from groundwater.  Without good follow-up rain to generate recharge and help offset pumping, 20 or 30 ML/ D constitutes a huge assault upon an already damaged aquifer system that will not cope. The TEP however contains no conditions requiring a watching brief upon the upstream groundwater aquifer system from where inflow is mostly derived  or for any assessment of impact based upon the three monthly water monitoring results (as was suggested.) This shameful approval to discharge increased volumes of recharge water of poorer quality as waste has to be viewed as the most expedient but least accountable option. Dewatering of such volumes will abbreviate the timeframe until aquifers are tragically plunged back into chronic depletion.   

 

Evaporation Pond

PRECEDENTS OF PROPERTY DEVALUATION

Long term breach of trust, dodgy assessments and lack of confidence that Regulators will actually adequately enforce mining regulation is directly responsible for the present coal mining / CSG debacle with the State having ownership of the dispute. Similarly, in past instances where industrial proponents received special dispensations and support packages from the State, representations from the affected communities fell on deaf ears. Precedents of property devaluation through sustained adverse publicity associated with Shale Oil’s atmospheric pollution at Targinnie and severe water depletion at Mt Larcom due to mine dewatering, caused buyers to shun those areas and for real estate values to collapse. The State stepped in at Targinnie with a district buyout of some 150 families while Cement Australia at Mt Larcom has been privately buying properties for years rather than meet obligations to manage dewatering impacts in an environmentally sustainable way.

Due to intense pressure for land within the Gladstone area, Mt Larcom landowners, forced out of farming by dairy deregulation, commodity prices, mine dewatering impacts and drought, have in spite of official obstruction due to concerns that increased populations might stifle the siting of industry, coped by breaking up and selling off their amalgamated 30 ha lots as rural subdivisions. This uniquely Mt Larcom solution has largely restored values, but this will not be an option in the relatively unpopulated CSG areas of the State where the recipients of “Significant Project Status” coal and CSG projects (similar to “Special Agreement Act” mines) will assuredly have commercial in-confidence deals with the State devoid of protective clauses other than for “make good” water provisions. 

“PEACEMAKER COMMITTEE.”

In March 2011 the Premier announced a high powered committee that has three
months to prepare an operational framework and 12 months in which to make periodic announcements. This timeframe may

• prolong the CSG controversy and
• entrench development proponents
• expose landholders to divide and conquer tactics
• heighten the probability of land devaluation.
• carry the Government through to the next election

The effectiveness of the announced committee and sub-committees may be constrained by the State having already delivered project certainty by entering into confidential and binding contracts with the proponents on undisclosed terms.

CSG COMMUNITIES’ “MAKE GOOD PROVISIONS” WORSE THAT THOSE AT MT LARCOM.

Under arrangements existing at Mt Larcom, (where a very comprehensive water monitoring scheme has generated over 30 years of data and some 40 odd hydrology studies) provisions exist for DERM to act as arbiter when there is a dispute between the landholder over his perceived entitlements and the company.  Although this has not worked effectively, it is preferable to that below.

In the CSG areas, if the landholder cannot reach an outcome with the company he then has to take his case to the Land Court where the company, who has already resisted his make good claim, will undoubtedly play hard ball. This Davis and Goliath match is a very poor option for the landholder due to the difficulty in amassing evidence and in justifying a court action the cost of which could well be   disproportionate with that of a make good water supply.

“THE SCIENCE “
TAKE GREAT CARE AND PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS

*Modelling is only as good as the inputs, assumptions, levels of error and integrity of the modeller.

To place reliance upon the Regulators who have a conflict of interest due to the policy decisions of their political masters is flawed and definitely not in the interest of landholders. DERM involved EEMAG and its three internationally recognised hydrologists in “placebo” consultation but did not empower them while retaining editorial control over inputs and the findings within their current four year study.

To place trust in either the Regulator or the proponent of a mining/CSG project that has a vested interest in minimising/avoiding recognition of adverse impacts and who selects, hires and pays the modelling consultant, is not in the interests of landholders. Modelling or studies conducted by the Department and endorsed by the Chief Executive Officer will, in all probability, not be open to legal challenge.

When Minister Kate Jones announces funding for model parameters to be genuinely independently examined and for model inputs and techniques to be agreed as adequate by all parties; with results to be independently peer reviewed and verified by consultants representing landholders (including taking into account local knowledge of landholders)  then she will have announced a minimum requirement.

• Based on the recommendations and urging of DPI Water Resources the East End Mine developed two models. The contested February 1997 model was abandoned when it could not evolve to the next generation. The new model of September 1999 was also contested and abandoned when it likewise could not evolve and forward projections proved erroneous. The inability of a model to evolve to the next generation is ultimate proof of model failure. 
• The water monitoring scheme for the East End Mine was set up in 1977 in a largely pre-computer era; it is therefore entirely understandable that the trend line data collected, was too generalised and not specific enough for modelling purposes. In addition, these models resorted to standard modelling assumptions based on Darcian flow and such methodology is entirely inappropriate for karst limestone aquifers with conduit flows.

NEED FOR AN APPEAL ON THE MERITS

There is presently no administrative appeal process or extremely limited opportunities available to landholders who have legitimate grievances that should be addressed. The Ombudsman refused to continue to investigate technical issues raised by EEMAG *“because he lacked the technical expertise to form an objective opinion.” *Approximate translation.

Any Government offering reassurances about the stringent enforcement of regulatory standards is not fair dinkum unless such statements are backed up by an independent and affordable appeal process on the merits. In the absence of such a process landholders will continue to disadvantaged, exploited and fall through the cracks. It is long past time that individuals and representative landholder groups insisted upon and lobbied for a reform agenda that includes an appeal on the merits.

Finally Coal mining and CSG objectors should reflect on the following: If after 15 years of accumulated experiences and possession of irrefutable evidence of corrupted regulatory processes, EEMAG’s vigorous representations cannot bring about changes to the East End Mine’s Environmental Authority based on properly assessed environmental values and the mine’s off lease-environmental impacts then what hope has anyone else got?