Bad for the Economy

Is the proposed mine the best way to stimulate the local economy?

The figures just don’t stack up.

This mine will put our local economy and businesses at risk for the sake of a handful of jobs. While a few people may benefit (at the expense of the majority) the mine threatens existing successful and sustainable industries like the Lindenow Flats vegetable growing industry, dryland farming including sheep and beef cattle, and the tourism industry with the impacts on our rivers and the Gippsland Lakes. Glenaladale is the gate way to the Mitchell River National Park and the iconic town of Dargo in the High Plains.

Who pays for the damage to roads, the loss of the unique character of our area, the loss of biodiversity when so much of the landscape is razed. And how do you put a price on the impacts on the Mitchell and Perry Rivers, and the Gippsland Lakes?

How will this project provide a net community benefit? What are the benefits to the local community and towns in the immediate, 5, 10 and 20 year time frames?

The Australia Institute shows the economic advantages of mining in rural communities is overrated

The Australia Institute Presentation

Job numbers are seldom what mining companies claim they will be
Rehabilitation is never completed
Local towns are no better off when mining comes

At risk :

World-class food is grown in the rich fertile soils of the Mitchell River Valley.
The industry is valued at more than $150 million annually and employs up to 2,000 people.
It supplies vegetables to fresh markets, fast food outlets, cafes, restaurants cruise ships and various businesses along the value-added product chain throughout Australia and overseas.
The mine is located on a plateau only 500m from the Valley. Dust contamination of soil and vegetables is unavoidable and could destroy the clean green image of the industry.
If the water the mine is demanding was redirected to growing vegetables more than 3 times the number of long-term sustainable jobs could be created.
If the mine goes ahead the horticultural industry will have to compete with it for water and there is a high likelihood of loss of existing agriculture related jobs and the community’s employment levels.
This project equates to an elevated level of impact to the region’s economy with a high level of risk.

Projected local jobs versus existing jobs:

Kalbar is claiming the Latrobe Valley as local even though it is 110 km from the mine site.
134 of Kalbar’s 197 projected jobs are for contractors.
Most mining jobs in Victoria are not well paid – with most operators getting little over $25 an hour – little more than vegetable pickers currently get
The proposed mine threatens many more sustainable jobs in local agriculture and tourism than the few by comparison mostly short-term jobs offered by the mine.
It is likely that a company will take over Kalbar before mining operations begin (most likely Chinese – Kalbars has already employed a position of “VP” in China), if it is a Chinese Company experience the Pacific region has shown that they bring their own workers so there would be few jobs for locals.

Impact on local and regional tourism:

Tourism contributes $294 million to East Gippsland’s economy, attracting 1.138 million visitors to the region increasing annually. Real and perceived impacts will affect its attractiveness as a tourism destination.
The Gippsland Lakes is already under threat from decreasing flows and increasing salinity affecting fish stocks and other recreational pursuits. They will not be able to tolerate reduced flows from the Mitchell and existing shallow aquifers, or the threats of siltation from mine run off.
The Fingerboards Loop, one of the iconic bicycle rides in Gippsland, will not longer be viable due to the dangers of so many B Double trucks using the local roads.

Impact on rates, property prices and personal wealth

Mining companies do not pay rates
For every else around mines, property values are estimated to decrease by 30% making it difficult to sell properties within the immediate area both residential and farming enterprises.
Because of the reduced values, banks will lend less against those properties than previously and require higher deposits on loans for people wanting to buy in to mining areas.
Balmoral (in Western Victoria where Iluka had a mineral sand mine) has the third lowest income per capital in Victoria $29,573 – Glenaladale currently stands at $37,198

Mining companies do not pay their way:

Compensation

Only directly impacted landowners will be compensated in accordance with the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
Neighbours and others impacted are not compensated for the loss of amenity, impacts on existing businesses, loss of access to water, pollution of air, soils, livestock and domestic water supplies
How are we going to be compensated for the loss of many hundreds of mature shade trees – not just loss of the visual amenity but the loss of contribution to habitat and biodiversity, and the loss of farms to provide shelter trees for livestock?

Infrastructure costs

Too often mining companies rely on undisclosed government grants or support for infrastructure upgrades, that money could go to far more sustainable projects and employment
The true cost of road widening, roundabouts and damage to rural roads, and the highway must be included
Who is going to pay for the power upgrade needed
Are Kalbar expecting government grants for their water storage dams
Are they expecting grants for water supply pipes?

Utility requirements will increase emissions

3000-kilowatt hours’ power supplied from electricity grid (early stages of construction use diesel generators)
Water requirements 3 to 4 gigalitres annually (minimum and in competition with irrigators)
Greenhouse gas emissions – 200,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum
Minerals mined are a non-renewable resource using large amounts of fossil fuels

Post Mining -Rehabilitation or the lack of it :

- Despite what Kalbar say, mineral sands miners do not ‘rehabilitate as they go’.
- Iluka said they would at Douglas but when prices rose, they were allowed to dig everything up as quickly as possible and not rehabilitate. In 2012 the community was left with a 14km*1km open scar that has still not been properly rehabilitated.
- The mineral sands mine at Kulwin near Ouyen closed in 2012 but will be another 13 years before it is rehabilitated.
- Rehabilitation of mine void – abandoned mines all over Australia leave the tax payers to pay the cost of rehabilitation and ongoing environment problems
- Impacts from tunnel erosion, acid sulphate soils, sedimentation, landform instability – previous studies/ trails show success is still not evident 10 years following rehabilitation
- Tailings dam failure, seepage and overflow
- Contamination of fish habitat and changed aquatic ecosystems
- Continuing impact on availability of surface and ground water
- Potential contamination of soil, water and air
- Destruction and loss of viable agriculture land
- Vegetation loss including large established shade trees
- Too often mining companies are allowed to walk away and leave taxpayer to pay to clean up the mess “ The Benambra mine so far has cost taxpayers over $7m trying to prevent highly poisonous waste discharging into the river and surrounding environment.”

It’s just not worth it!

Bad for the Economy

CONTACT US

FOLLOW US