I spent much of the last two weeks in Brisbane's Land Court, listening to a Central Queensland grazier — Bruce Currie — and a couple of conservation groups — North Queensland Conservation Council and the Coast and Country Association of Queensland — trying to persuade the court that GVK Hancock's proposed Kevins Corner mine in the Galilee Basin is neither viable nor desirable.
As in similar cases — Alpha in 2013 and Carmichael in April this year — the greatest concern is the potential impact of mining on precious groundwater. Will farmers' bores dry up, springs cease to be and the Great Artesian Basin be compromised beyond recovery? There are at least nine so-called mega mines planned for this semi-arid region, but as yet there is no fully comprehensive cumulative impact assessment of water resources, regional ecosytems or economic benefits.
Hydrogeology experts don't agree on how the rock strata dip, how permeable they are, and to what extent dewatering the coal seams below might affect aquifers near the surface on which farmers depend. There's heavy reliance on groundwater modelling rather than hard facts, but, as Land Court Member Wayne Cochrane commented in the beginning, a model is only as good as the extent to which its assumptions are based on reality.
Real values, such as exploratory bore data, are input, but modelling also involves theoretical constants, such as the flow of water across the mine site from one boundary of the model area to another.
In some models presumed properties stay the same through time; others allow for variations, in rainfall for instance. Presumably, model calibrations — the adjustment of parameters to obtain the most likely potential outcomes — might also be used to achieve the most desirable outcomes.
The economics of mining the Galilee Basin is even more controversial. Under Queensland law, a mining company is obliged to run an input-output economic model rather than a cost-benefit analysis.
The former tends to overstate the economic benefits of a large project such as Kevins Corner. It assumes that the amount of arable land, water and labour are limitless, and not being removed from other sectors of the economy by the activities of this mine. Welfare economics, as in cost-benefit analysis, encompasses social and environmental impacts in calculating the “costs” of a mine.
A question asked in the Carmichael case, however, is just as relevant to them all: what price a black-throated finch or waxy cabbage palm? Has any mine's environmental impact statement included adequate field studies of fauna and flora?
Cochrane is unlikely to hand down his recommendations before December 6, when we learn the fate of the former LNP government's Water Reform and Other Legislation Amendments Bill, under which GVK would not be required to obtain a water licence. Labor promised prior to their election to repeal it, but it seems unlikely, and instead they'll introduce their own water legislation.
As the law stands today, however, a licence is necessary to protect water sources. A conundrum for Cochrane.
[You can read Jude Garlick's blogs here.]
Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.