The EES submissions (particularly from groups such as BDEC who understood the engineering processes) forced Kalbar to admit that they would never be able to recover the water they needed and that they had underestimated their annual water needs by almost 3GL (2,700,000,000 litres).
So 900 people wasted months reading and responding to the 11,000 page EES documentation only to have Kalbar admit – in January 2021 – that they had made a fundamental error in their calculations.
Kalbar’s ‘solution’ was to claim they would be able to use centrifuges to recover the water they needed. They put forward a very ‘sketchy’ technical note that claimed that the centrifuges would be the answer to their water woes and that their use would obviate the need for a tailings dam. Unfortunately the Panel ‘bought’ the claim and allowed the hearings to continue without any consideration of the environmental effects of the tailings dam.
Not only did the decision mean submitters had to then research centrifuges to put in supplementary submissions, but the main parties had to pay extra for their experts to investigate the implications. Kalbar’s late admission of their mistake and their subsequent claims about being able to use centrifuges meant extensive delays to and increased costs for the hearings. It also meant hundreds of extra hours for all submitters to try to understand and respond to the proposal as well as hundreds of thousands of extra dollars to cover supplementary expert evidence and additional legal fees.
Mine-free Glenaladale (Submitter 813) put together a fairly comprehensive critique of the centrifuge proposal that took a number of people many hundreds of hours of additional work. All other submitters were in the same boat thanks to Kalbar’s ineptitude and lack of regard for community and others involved.
For a good summary of the impacts of Kalbar’s actions and the Panel’s decision we suggest you read Submitter 24’s (Russell Peel) supplementary submission. To gain a better understanding of the engineering limitations that make the centrifuge proposal read Submitter 429’s (Bendigo District Environment Council) supplementary submission. Submitter 423 (Nick Barton) shows a far greater understanding of the limitations of the centrifuge proposal and the flaws in Kalbar’s own modelling.
The East Gippsland Shire’s ‘Ausenco Review’ was another source of speculation about the legal process when Ausenco’s original ‘expert report’ (that clearly showed how unlikely centrifuges were to be a viable option either economically or physically), was withdrawn by Ausenco. That company claimed a conflict due to a commercial arrangement they had unexpectedly and suddenly discovered with a company associated with Kalbar Operations. For more information go to https://minefreeglenaladale.org/centrifuges/
The situation exposed a significant problem with the panel hearing process in that panelists have no power to require truth from proponents and no power to investigate if there has been unwarranted interference in the proceedings or the evidence submitted to them.