Land Clearing

15 June 2006

The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory (ECNT) says the decision of the Environment Minister and EPA to approve two Matilda Minerals Ltd mineral sand mining projects on the north coast of Melville Island is very troubling (notification by letter on 30 May).

ECNT Coordinator Peter Robertson said many key issues raised in submissions by government agencies and ECNT had not been adequately addressed, including impacts on groundwater, impacts from acid sulfate soils, the adequacy of buffers around sensitive ecosystems, rehabilitation issues, weeds, and impacts from big new roads and large truck movements.

“We have to get this right because approval for these two mines could set a precedent for several more sandmines on the Tiwi Islands , as exploration is ongoing and other deposits have been identified.

“Assuming final approval is granted by the Mines Minister there will be a heavy responsibility on the Mines Department, EPA, and other government agencies to ensure that the company fully complies with all the stated environmental commitments and conditions and is heavily penalised for breaches – up to and including having its mining permit cancelled.

“We are particularly concerned about the inclusion of a recommendation in the EPA report that would give Matilda Ltd the opportunity to reduce the already minimal and inadequate buffer widths around a range of extremely important ecological communities, e.g. coastal rainforest.

“Mining companies will always argue that buffers are too wide and will pay large sums of money to big consultancy firms to show that lesser widths are ‘world’s best practice’ – despite all the evidence to the contrary and the overriding importance of the precautionary principle.

“We also object to approval for the company to NOT place a 200m buffer along the beach in the north east corner of the Andranangoo Creek mining area. The company has been given approval to mine within less than 100m of the beach along one kilometre of coast. The decision that a buffer is not required was made because ‘no turtles breed along this stretch of coast’.

“Even if it were true that no species of turtle ever nests anywhere along that section of the beach, the general principle and overarching benefits of the 200m beach buffer should have applied in this location as well, and should be enforced accordingly.”

Back to top