The re-opening of various mines up on the plateau is a worry. The Hillgrove mine and the antimony mine at Wild Cattle Creek. Both of these mines pose great threats once again to an already stressed ecosystem.
This is the head waters of so many rivers and creeks. We cannot let them go ahead with this simply on the grounds that it was done before.
Before they made many mistakes and we must learn from these or face a very uncertain future regarding the health and welfare of everyone living along any of these waterways.
The people's health will be impacted and there is no denying this. Money was given to the Kempsey-Macleay Council to effect change and they said and did nothing. Is this corruption and collusion?
This article below was printed in the Don Dorrigo Gazette December 2011.
PRINTED .under the
heading ‘Mining in Dorrigo’
It presents information that appears to be
directly from an Anchor Resources brochure on the Bielsdown Project. It
would seem appropriate to question and challenge this article and
highlight perhaps what we the community haven’t been told.
Anchor Resources is one of three companies holding mineral
exploration licences on the Plateau and is currently the most active.
Anchor Resources activities include drilling for gold at Dundurrabin,
proposed drilling for antimony/gold at Wongwibinda (Fishington Mine) and
further drilling at Bielsdown.
This flurry of activity in our region
reflects the rising price of antimony, gold and other metals and I
question whether this is due to resource scarcity or market
manipulation? China produces 90% of the world’s antimony, and we have
seen the price of antimony skyrocket from $4K per tonne to $16K per
tonne in the last two years.
This price increase has largely been
associated with the closure of a number of large producing antimony
mines in China due to human health/safety and environmental concerns. It
is pertinent to add here that Anchor Resources is now at least 96%
owned by the Chinese company Shandong Jinshunda Group as of mid 2011.
I note that Anchor Resources refer to the exploration licence
process, however it is difficult to find the latest approval for their
Bielsdown project with the Government gazette showing an application to
renew the licence in February 2011, however this licence doesn’t appear
to be granted as yet.
Also of concern is that a Review of Environmental
Factors (REF) has not been undertaken for any of the exploration licence
applications submitted by Anchor for the Bielsdown project since 2007.
My understanding is that a REF is a requirement of all exploration
licence applicants to undertake an environmental impact assessment of
the proposed activities so that NSW DPI can make an assessment under the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to granting the
licence.
Given that the Bielsdown project location has state and
national significance as habitat for threatened species I question the
currency of the exploration licence and how the NSW government has
overlooked an important part of the approval process. This is not to
mention the requirements under the Commonwealth legislation that the
location triggers.
It is unclear whether Anchor Resources have notified
the Commonwealth government to determine if their exploration activities
are considered a ‘controlled action’ under the Environmental Protection
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requiring further environmental
impact assessment and approval.
Many farmers have shared with me their
frustration about their efforts and sacrifices in conserving native
vegetation and habitat for the public good only to see mining companies
given open slather.
I don’t wish to dwell solely on the environmental issues surrounding
the potential of mining on the Plateau, as there are other issues that
need to be considered.
It seems that Dorrigo is not immune to the
unprecedented mining expansion in regional Australia where the potential
social and economic impacts need to be considered by the communities
faced with these challenges.
As the current legislation has been
identified as inadequate to accommodate the risks, new policies are
being developed and proposals to change legislation under debate. In the
meantime, mining activities continue to expand. In considering the
full impacts of mining, the concerns of landholders and rural
communities should not be dismissed as simply ‘alarmist’.
The current
inquiries and reports demonstrate the validity of these concerns:
- Inquiry into Murray Darling Basin expanded to include coal
seam gas (May 2011)
- Inquiry into coal seam gas impacts: NSW Parliament (August
2011)
- Inquiry into the impacts of ‘Fly in Fly Out’ workers on
regional Australia (August 2011)
- National Water Commission Report (Sept 2011) concern about
coal seam gas use of water
It is important that communities can openly, safely and respectfully
discuss the positive and negative impacts of mining, assisted by access
to all information and learning from our past.
I note that Anchor Resources provides a brief long-term perspective
on the use of antimony presenting it to be a very safe substance,
however its important to remember that history teaches us many things.
Asbestos was also used historically in early times with a variety of
uses. The human health problems related to asbestos identified in Europe
in the late 1800s until a ban in Australia in 2003 teaches us that it
is responsible and not alarmist to question the human health aspects of
antimony.
There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding antimony such as
conflicting information on bio-accumulation and a lack of Health
Investigation Levels (HIL) or Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL)
under the National Pollution Environmental Measure (NEPM) 1999 or by NSW
EPA. The only current guidelines we have are the safe limits set for
waterways (0.009 mg/L ANZECC 2000), and for drinking water (0.003 mg/L
NHMRC 2004).
At the Bielsdown project site a number of the creek sample
locations have concentrations of antimony, arsenic and zinc that breach
both the ANZECC and NHMRC guidelines. The results of the laboratory
tests for surface water samples suggest that there is residual surface
water contamination of antimony, arsenic and zinc downstream of the
former antimony mine site. (Source: Coffey Report in Anchor Resources
Ltd 2009).
The majority of past antimony mining in Australia has
occurred in our region and sadly we still have the legacy of pollution
from these abandoned mines and processing sites (such as Urunga). Recent
spillages from the Hillgrove mine has highlighted the historic
pollution in the Macleay River and concerns of landholders living
downstream.
As China produces 90% of antimony globally, it is worth looking at
the science emerging there:
· Serious Antimony and Arsenic contamination in the aquatic
environment in Hunan China (large antimony mining area). The Antimony
concentration in drinking water exceeded both Chinese and WHO drinking
water guidelines by 13 and 3 times.
Fish gills exhibited the highest
Antimony concentrations but the extent of accumulation varied with
habitat (Fu et al 2010 Science of the Total Environment 16:408)
·
Water samples from Xikuangshan China the world’s largest
Antimony mine were found to be two to three orders of magnitude higher
compared to the typical concentrations of dissolved Antimony in
unpolluted rivers.
Signs of intoxication were observed among local mine
workers with extensive exposure to different forms of Antimony for a
long period of time (Lui et al 2010 Environmental Geochemistry and
Health 32:5).
·
Concentrations of hair samples from Xikuangshan Antimony
mining area and Guiyang City were compared. The contents of antimony,
arsenic and mercury of human hair of Xikuangshan antimony areas are
much higher than those of Guiyang City. These results show that heavy
metals in antimony mining area may significantly affect human health
(Liu et la 2009 Huan Jing Ke Xue 15, 30:3)
Lessons from other regions in Australia provide a few insights to
consider on whether there are true social and economic benefits from
mining for our regions.
The Hunter Valley
- Mining brings jobs but can deplete the labour pool (mining vs
agriculture)·Mining brings benefits but they are not equally spread
·
- Mining provides infrastructure but community networks/family
life is often neglected, including polarising of communities;
psychosocial impacts; feelings of social dislocation and changing
community identity
·
- The social changes accompanying mining can mobilise
communities
(Source: Dr Jo-Anne Everingham University of Qld 2011)
The Bowen Basin
·
- Positive economic impacts limited by use of non resident
workers
- Shortages/negative outcomes in housing, infrastructure,
services, recreational amenities, local employment, local
business/economy; crime; community justice and lifestyle
- Projected cumulative social impacts in the region include:
deteriorating infrastructure, damage to transport corridors, drain on
human and social services, fly-over effects on local business and
economy; acute housing and rental shortages, which can in turn force out
residents and business owners.
(Sources: Carrington and Pereira School of Justice QUT June 2011;
Rolfe et al 2007)
I recently attended the Dorrigo Rotary Club meeting where Anchor
Resources presented information about their mining activities. I asked
whether we could have more information about the 60 jobs for the Plateau
that had been quoted by Luke Hartsuyker MP in a newspaper after a
briefing by Anchor Resources. I was told three times by Ian Price of
Anchor Resources that he didn’t know about this despite him being quoted
as the source.
Another guest asked of the mining royalty payment to the
NSW government, this question could also not be answered.
If our local
councils and local member are being told of the estimate of jobs that
the mining development will bring I can only assume that the proposal is
well past any preliminary feasibility study.
It is disappointing that
our community has not been privy to the same level of detailed
information.
The planning process is currently in a state of transition in NSW
with the planning legislation amended in September this year, which
notably changed the Minister’s powers in assessing such developments.
Hence the information provided by Anchor Resources on the mining lease
process is incorrect as depending on whether the proposed mine
development is considered a state significant project or not will
determine if it is assessed either by the local council or by the NSW
Planning Assessment Commission.
There are also other approval processes
that this development may require to undertake on state and commonwealth
levels. Regardless of who the final approval body is, the community
will have 30 days to respond to the development application including
the Environmental Impact Assessment.
It is important that our community
has access to support and information to be able to participate in a
meaningful and informed way. I can only say that the current system is
biased towards the development proponent with communities provided with
little information or support.
My background is as an environmental and
social scientist currently based at University of New England and I have
spent many years working with rural communities around natural resource
issues. However I am wearing two hats as I am also a member of our
community and It is the inequity of the current planning process that
has influenced my active involvement in Dorrigo Environment Watch who
has stepped up to assist our local community through the provision of
information about antimony, mining and the planning assessment process.
Jacqueline Williams.
[Letter to the Editor, Don Dorrigo Gazette, December 2011]
Images @ Melonpopzdropz Flickr
