Locals fight coal polluter

by Tom Pearson

At the end of 2001 the local community of the Murrurundi Shire, north-west 
of Sydney in the Hunter Valley, heard a rumour of plans for a coal mine in 
the area. Indeed, it transpired that a company had a mining licence to do 
tests. The company — a small operator — then bought land and set up the 
Bickham Coal Company. By October 2002 Bickham Coal had tabled its review of 
environmental factors (REF) with the Department of Mineral Resources.

This was an REF to remove a 25,000 tonne bulk coal extract. Also included 
in the REF was the extraction of up to 250,000 megalitres of water from the 
Pages River, a tributary of the Hunter River system, at the top of the 
Hunter River catchment.

The mine site is south of two towns — Murrurundi and Blanford — and below 
the town of Gundy. When the locals protested Bickham Coal said it would 
still take the water but drill a hole further south and pour it into an 
aquifer (subterranean layer of water) after washing the coal.

This has profound implications for the environment, including the level of 
pollution of the mine water being poured back into the underground system 
and the flow-on effect to other waterways.

The mine owners then claimed that the aquifer was separate from the river, 
that it was not connected in any way.

By this time the Bickham Coal Action Group, a local community organisation, 
had been established and was running a campaign around the issues involved.

The Group enlisted the services of a geologist, who informed them that, as 
the bulk extract was just 100 metres from the river, the process could lead 
to the river being diverted down the hole drilled into the aquifer.

The Pages River has its own problems. It has been put under environmental 
stress over a long period. An unregulated stream now in a drought stricken 
area, it is already over-allocated for water usage. So the proposed 
interference in the aquifer, which actually feeds the river, set alarm 
bells ringing.

The planned coal extract would create a two-hectare hole that would go 
deeper than the river. The Bickham Coal Action Group demanded to know why 
such a huge extract was needed to do a test. The coal from the extract 
would be sent to Japan to be burnt so as to ascertain its quality.

This scenario made no sense to the local people — another coal mine at the 
head of the Hunter catchment, next to an unregulated stream that is over-
allocated; the creation of a gaping pit deeper than the river and the risk 
of the river being diverted into the pit; all with the aim of coal exports 
to Japan.

The local community says simply, "We don't need it".

Further to these crucial questions, the mine company initially claimed 
that, following the extraction of the sample, it would produce only 25 
million tonnes, their argument being that it is only a small, short-term 
operation that would not have an impact on the river anyhow.

But the coal seam cuts across the Pages River.

Added to this is the struggling economy of the Murrurundi Shire. The 
Murrurundi township has a population of 900; the Shire altogether has 2000 
people. The council supported the mine when it was first proposed, with the 
hope that it would create some jobs.

The broader community saw it from another angle: over 300 people wrote to 
the Department of Mineral Resources expressing their concerns about the 
impact on the environment and 100 Murrurundi residents signed a petition 
against the project.

The issue also goes beyond the local area. If the river gets diverted or 
polluted by the mine everyone downstream will be effected. There has been 
strong opposition from those areas as well.

The Mayor the nearby Scone Shire has also expressed strong concerns.

Like most rural communities, the area has high unemployment. Some people 
even travel south to work in the coal mines in the Muswelbrook Shire.

The economics of the mine itself is that, although coal mines have closed 
in the area and the coal supplies are not as easily accessible as they once 
were, coal prices are still strong; from the company's point of view it is 
thus a viable economic proposition.

The fact that it is a small company does not exclude the involvement 
further down the track of a big transnational miner: quite often the mode 
of operation for the smaller mines is that they once they are set in motion 
the bigger companies such as Coal and Allied step in and take over the 
operation.

At the time of writing the whole thing is up in the air. While it was 
thought that the release of a second REF by the company was imminent, 
Bickham Coal management has hedged its bets, saying there would be a new 
REF, then announcing there would be only more information added to the 
current REF.

Whatever form it takes, the document will have to be made available for 
public scrutiny for 28 days. In theory it should address all the concerns 
raised by the community. That remains to be seen.