We are a determined group of rural Australians chronically affected by mine dewatering. We have remained in dispute with Queensland Cement Ltd (now Cement Australia) and the regulating agencies of the Qld Government since 1995. EEMAG has fought for social justice and accountability while being forced to involuntarily subsidise the East End open cut limestone mine operated by Cement Australia, a privately owned subsidiary of Holcim Pty Ltd the World’s largest cement company that lists on the London and Zurich Stock Exchanges.
Purpose of this website
To oppose “minimum compliance.” To upgrade and make the East End Mine’s environmental approvals representative of the mine’s environmental impacts via participation within the current Environmental Impact Study for an Environmental Authority and Mineral Lease Application 80156.
The Present:
The mine is established and surface and underground water impacts are entrenched. For 35 years the mine has discharged our precious water downstream as waste…..
Since 1995 over forty (40) hydrology studies (and two models) has been unable to reach common agreement as to the full extent of the mine’s impacts.
EEMAG’s four (4) dissenting internationally recognised hydrologists have driven much of the research; however, the community remains disadvantaged through lack of empowerment and no avenue of appeal.
The Science
The hydrology studies of the East End Mine consultants and Departmental officers are all based on Darcian Flow principles (think even, predictable flow as in a sand aquifer). EEMAG and its experts contend the local limestone aquifers are karst and that studies based on Darcian Flow methodology are invalidated
Public Objections before the Queensland Land Court in 2015
Advertising for Notice of Public Objections before the Queensland Land Court for Cement Australia’s new Mining Lease Application 80156 and Draft Amendment to the East End Mine’s Environmental Authority is pending. EEMAG will attempt to engage the company in negotiations but any failure of that process will automatically result in EEMAG contesting public objections before the Land Court. Cement Australia’s EIS envisages deepening the mine from 45 metres to 90 metres. In their hydrology assessment the EIS uses Darcian Flow methodology to conclude that doubling the depth of the mine whether alone or in conjunction with proposed mining lease 80156 will cause only an additional two metre drawdown of the water table for a short distance from the mine. EEMAG disagrees entirely with this hypothesis and will ask the Land Court to rule that the use of Darcian Flow methodology in what is essentially a Karst Aquifer system is:
inappropriate and
the findings are fatally flawed through reliance upon the wrong methodology and
that the EIS study therefore contains no valid risk assessment what-so-ever.
The Court will be asked to determine whether local limestone aquifers are Darcian Flow or karst. The implications if the Court should find the aquifers are karst are far reaching as government and company findings rely exclusively upon Darcian Flow methodology to interpret almost forty years of data drawn from what is regarded as one of the most monitored mines in Australia.
EEMAG’s Message to QLD Government
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 original grossly unrepresentative of impact 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 twenty four 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 contribution 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.