Stanbroke Pastoral Company has lodged documents with the Brisbane Supreme Court to sue Xstrata’s Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd (EHM) for just under $2 million ($1,989,520) to cover environmental damage caused by negligence, plus interest and costs. The Ernest Henry mine is located 38km north of Cloncurry (North West Queensland) and it is within the boundaries of the Stanbroke-owned cattle station, Fort Constantine.
After heavy rain in early 2009 heavy metals leaked from Ernest Henry gold & copper mine water storages into two watercourses that run through Fort Constantine Station. The minerals include arsenic, lead, copper, cobalt and chloride.
The state government Department of Environment & Resource Management (DERM) is also pursuing Ernest Henry Mining over the same spill, and four other mining companies for environmental damage elsewhere. These are: Australia Raw Materials Corporation Pty Ltd (Great Australia Mine), the Lady Annie Mine (parent company CopperCo Ltd), MMG Century Ltd (Century Mine) and Birla Mt Gordon Pty Ltd.
Pastoralists all over Australia will be watching the Stanbroke Vs Ernest Henry Mine case with a great deal of interest. There is a perception in the bush that while pastoralists are not even allowed to cut down a tree or two for any purpose including fencing, mining companies can pretty well behave as they please, with impunity. Flying over thousands of square miles of shot lines crossing fragile creeks and gullies is perhaps the best illustration. Mining activity has caused damage of varying degrees and types to pastoral land all over Australia. Damage ranges from groundwater contamination and water table lowering (including the Great Artesian Basin), surface water use and pollution, air pollution from smelter discharges, and the degradation/pollution of food-producing land and the natural environment (soil and creeks/rivers). Stanbroke are to be commended for pursuing this case, as action like this will help throw the spotlight on issues gnawing away at many landholders, and help ensure mining companies take more care in future.
To explain away leaking tailings dam pollution by saying that the rainfall was ‘unprecedented’ and ‘unexpected’ etc is absolutely pathetic. We all know how erratic Australian rainfall is and that it is not uncommon for most parts of Australia to receive their whole annual rainfall within just a few days – from Melbourne to Cairns to Broome and all points inbetween. Our oldest rainfall records only date back slightly more than a couple of centuries so it’s simply unacceptable to claim that because one rainfall event broke a record that is only 200 years old (or even less than 130 years old, in the case of most of northern Australia), they should be excused from environmental care and responsibility. Weather patterns consist of small and large cycles – from daily cycles right up to long term cycles over thousands of years. A century or two of records is a mere fly spot on the earth’s calendar.
Miners, of all people, are completely aware of the age of the earth and climatic variability because the minerals they’re digging up are millions of years old (an estimaged 1500 million years ago, in the case of Ernest Henry), laid down when the region’s climate was very different. For mining companies to claim that heavy rainfall was a surprise when they’re digging up something created when the area was a rainforest or under the sea, is simply laughable. There isn’t any other group in society that is faced with such a degree of daily first hand evidence of the changing environment as much as miners.
Go Stanbroke, it won’t just be the Cloncurry and Gulf Pastoralists cheering for you, it will be every property owner who has ever been affected by mining activity. Plus everyone who has wondered why, when it comes to looking after the earth and water supplies, there is one rule for some and one rule for others.
For a contrast that summarises the contrast between sustainable & environmentally friendly agriculture and pillaging & polluting mining, check out the information and images on this page on the Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd website and this page of the Stanbroke website. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have a growing pro-vegetarian movement based on ‘being more environmentally responsible’ when mining companies are treating the environment however they like and virtually no-one is taking any notice at all. I’m still astonished that Santos is allowed to drill for oil and gas right down in actual bed of the Cooper Creek Channels! If this sort of environmental-disaster-waiting-to-happen was being created in Parramatta, Ipswich or Broadmeadows there would be an uproar. It’s probably only a matter of time before ‘record breaking floods’ cause a catastrophic oil leak into one of Australia’s most pristine river systems. Just more evidence that the pro-vegetarian movement is actually being driven by one-eyed animal liberationists with an entirely different (hidden) agenda rather than genuine environmentalists. If they were serious about the health of our environment, they’d be listing mining activity right up the top of their priorities. We need minerals but we need food and a healthy natural environment even more. If only the pro-vegetarian fanatics would redirect their considerable energies to ensuring mining was carried out in a more environmentally responsible fashion.