Leaving a Hole in the Ground !

Mining is certainly in the news in New South Wales, and for all the wrong reasons. New mines have been proposed in areas which contain our best agricultural soil and several existing mines need to extend their leases under people's homes, and that would undoubtedly result in building damage because of subsidence.

What really gets many people enraged is the demand of the mining industry to extend their operation into our precious water catchment areas. There is ample evidence that mining results in water contamination and cracks in the creek bed reduce the flow that eventually reaches our reservoirs.

It is the usual battle between the ecology - and jobs.  Mining is a rewarding - but dangerous - source of income for miners and if mining extensions are refused the people employed will have difficulty finding other work that pays on the same scale.

Unfortunately, there is another side to mining that seems likely to impact on the public purse.  All mines will eventually close when the last of the product mined is extracted, and it is part of their mining agreement with the government that they restore the mine site when that happens.

In many cases, the method of mining used is " open cut " and this results in a vast hole in the ground and surrounding " mountains " of " spoil " that has been removed.  The mining company is responsible for filling that void, covering it with top soil and planting grass and trees to rejuvenate it to the state prior to commencing mining.

There is doubt that most mining companies would lack the financial resources to complete that task and remedial work would then be financed by the taxpayer.  This is precisely what has happened in various overseas countries when mining companies have filed for bankruptcy and avoided their restoration obligations.

There are  twenty-three mine voids in just the Hunter region of New South Wales and it is estimated that it would require an outlay of between $ 11.5 billion and $ 25.3 billion to rectify the damage done if they closed.

Miners are required to lodge a bond with the government when a mining lease is approved and the bond holding for the entire Hunter reason is just $ 3.3 billion.  In the event of a shortfall, this would be a mere pittance of what would be required to make those mining sites productive farmland once again.

Perhaps the cost of restoration after mining is finished is the issue not being taken into account when these mining decisions are being evaluated.  It is certainly a cost which should take a big part in the approval process because otherwise mining will leave a scar on the landscape.

It would also be reasonable to expect that restoration money be put up front when the mining proposal is being evaluated. It is obvious that the bond required is presently far less than the value of what will be required !