BACK in 2008 when then Labor Resources Minister Ian Macdonald announced that Chinese government-owned mining company Shenhua had paid $300million for the right to explore for coal on the Liverpool Plains, many people expressed concerns.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Assuming the Chinese found coal and wanted to mine it, how could the government assess any mining proposal fairly, given the huge sum of cash it had already banked? Surely, accepting so much money upfront for the right to explore created a powerful expectation that a mine would be approved.
The other major concern was that the exploration area covered some land that was particularly valuable for agriculture. The so-called black soil plains are far-famed for their fertility, and the idea of permanently destroying them for a one-off coal dividend seemed irrational to many observers.
Not surprisingly, in the years since Mr Macdonald’s announcement, there have been many bitter protests. Indeed, the Liverpool Plains became part of the heartland of the Lock the Gate movement, with farmers fighting desperately to stave off the destruction of their land.
The approval this week of Shenhua’s Watermark mine project by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission represents an attempt at a compromise.
The mine will produce 10million tonnes of coal a year, funnelling royalties into state coffers, and create 600 jobs.
Shenhua and the commission say the mine will stay in the hills above the black soil plains and won’t disturb fertile areas.
If the experience of the Hunter Valley is any guide, the black soil plains can’t be considered safe from mining in the long term. In years to come, when the character of the district has altered from agricultural to industrial, new applications may be made with fewer opponents to stand in their way.
For now, the farmers and environmentalists are complaining that the biggest impacts on the land will be indirect, via the fragile creek and aquifer systems that underpin water supply.
Mining is a thirsty business, and it isn’t clear where Watermark will get all the water it will need.
Some might suggest that this mine shouldn’t be happening, at least not now, while other readily accessible coal resources exist that don’t threaten scarce and precious farmland.
That goes to the system of issuing exploration licences, a system described by the Independent Commission Against Corruption as ‘‘opaque’’, ‘‘ad hoc’’ and made in ‘‘a strategic vacuum’’ that invites lobbying from proponents.
ICAC recommended that environmental, economic and social issues be analysed in depth before mining exploration licences were issued. The Liverpool Plains demonstrates why that would be a good idea.
