Happy New Year to all of you! With the SOI stuck high in the +15 area, it might be a wet one! That could be an interesting hydrological year! In most cases the SOI has about a 3 - 6 month lag with the rainfall and streamflow signature, so maybe we are in for a wet autumn. Fingers crossed!
In the mean time I would like to get back to the story of long-wall mining and its impact on water resources. There are some interesting thoughts here, which are related to current world developments and water and the environment.
A while back (24th of November to be correct) there was a story in the Sydney Morning Herald about environmentalists being quite angry that Peabody Energy had received an environmental award for the repair job they had done on cracks in the Waratah Rivulet which flows into Woronora dam. I am with the environmentalists in this case and I will explain why.
The story is quite significant for three major reasons: 1) Peabody Energy plans to expand its Metropolitan Mining operation which caused the cracks in the first place; 2) There is a plan for extensive long wall mining in the Liverpool plains by BHP Biliton, which has also raised concerns about the impact on the area’s water resources; and 3) the current global downturn in the economy has led to a reduction in demand for coal and several mining companies (including Peabody Energy) have announced reductions in their production.
First the repair job. Basically the long wall mining underneath has caused the overlying rock to crack which has resulted in increased surface water losses from the rivulet. What Peabody Mining had done was insert a polyurethane resin to fix the cracks. The company is not sure whether it worked and whether it will work across the whole rivulet but took the award anyway. To me this sounds a bit like an engineer who builds a faulty house, gets caught out and inserts a few brackets and receives a price for construction safety. Dodgy business, I would say.
This relates to the proposed long wall mining in the Liverpool Plains, which also boast significant underground water resources. Particularly the MP Tony Windsor has thrown his weight behind the protest groups. Clearly this is not without self interest as the Nationals seem to have voted against groundwater investigations, but support none the less. To refresh, the Liverpool plains is one of the most productive agricultural areas of Australia and partly relies on groundwater for irrigation operations. Irrigation licences have just been cut back severely under the Water Management act (up to 90% for some individuals) and it is therefore understandable that people are edgy (and knowledgeable) about their water. Luckily there is now a process and funding to look at the impact of mining on water resources. I hope they will study the Waratah Rivulet closely.
But what about the global financial crisis? Well, if coal companies are cutting back, due to a decrease in demand, I would think there is less of a rush to develop new projects. Thus it allows a much more thorough investigation of the impacts without causing too much economic damage to the coal companies. I assume they are reorganising resources and putting off investment as a response. Well maybe putting off the Caroona project and the expansion of the Metropolitan mining operation could be a start. That would allow a proper environmental investigation to take place. Only then can we, the public and the voters, weigh the different options and decide what is in our best interest.
Comments
Willem - Please refer to the presentation to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) by the Department of Water and Energy (ie myself) on 11 March 2009. Hydrologists in DWE (I am coordinator for mining assessments in NSW) are changing the goalposts with regard to mining activities. Please check the results of the Hunter Coalfield audit (after my 1997 guidelines became de-facto policy in 2005). In a nutshell, avoidance is now the standard outcome mining must achieve; have a look at recent longwall examples such as Xstrata Tahmoor for case studies.
I would value discussing these issues with you at your convenience; based in the Newcastle office of DWE.
Posted by: Fegus Hancock | March 8, 2009 09:31 PM
Dear Fergus,
Thanks for your comments. I am glad to see that policy is exactly as it
should be: changing to changes in public views and developments in
science. I think the point I was trying to make (and maybe did not make
too clearly) was that we have to remain watchful in our Env. Impact
Assessment. As I have pointed out there is no human activity without
impact, so we have to understand the impacts before we try to weigh our
options. On some days mining is the best option, on other days it might
not be. That depends on alternatives and impacts.
I will continue to follow the story with interest.
Willem
Posted by: Willem Vervoort | March 11, 2009 02:41 PM
I live at Tahmoor and am seeing the damage done to peoples' homes, local roads, local shopping centre, and read in the local paper that the trains now slow down to 40 km an hour from 80 km travelling through Tahmoor becaus eof the mining. What does standard outcome mining mean? Could this coal be extracted in a way to cause less damage to homes? Three houses near me are to be demolished and they have not minded under my place yet!
Thank you
Posted by: Cathy Dulhunty | April 1, 2009 04:31 PM
Hi Cathy,
I think I am not the right person of commenting on structural damage, but it sounds to me that there are some real problems.
To put this in perspective to the groundwater concerns that I raised: If it has such impact on the surface we need to be very careful about what it might do below the surface. I think Fergus comment highlights that there are people within the state government who are equally concerned and are trying to do something.
Willem
Posted by: Willem | April 2, 2009 08:16 PM