❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's groundwater management plan and its potential impact on Mr. Laurie Mills' prospecting lease, alleging the DoE is favoring KCGM. The Minister provides no direct answer, instead referring to a large number of previous questions on notice.
AnsweredQoN 3758Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated 26 May 2006 signed by K J Taylor, Acting Director General, Department of Environment (DoE) addressed to Mr Laurie Mills concerning Prospecting Licence 26/3126 and the draft Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) groundwater and seepage and management plan dated 22 July 2005 -
(1) Can the Minister state how many metres is the boundary of Prospecting Licence 26/3126 from the closest point of the bottom toe of the Fimiston 1 tailings dam wall?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Is it correct that the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 states ‘It must be recognised that groundwater level management is most difficult near to the TSF’s with these levels having the greatest potential to fluctuate due to deposition of tailings within the nearby paddock and the location of the supernatant poll on the TSF surface. About two thirds of all the groundwater bores in the Eastern Borefield are within 100 metres of the TSF for this reason (see Bore Location). In general, within this 100 metre halo around the facility there is limited vegetation as most of the infrastructure associated with the operational area equates to about 20 per cent of the TSF’s footprint and is considered part of the facility. It may not be practical to lower groundwater levels within this operational area below four metres BGS and so this area is not considered in the GMP objective while the TSF’s are operational’?
(4) If no to (3), will the Minister quote the specific text from the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005?
(5) Did the ‘100 metre halo’ ‘operational area’ shown in blue on an attached map referred to in the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 encroach upon the environment of Mr Laurie Mills lease P26/3126?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), how did this come about?
(8) Can the Minister explain why did the DoE allow KCGM to alter the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 without addressing the fact that KCGM had clearly stated that it may be impracticable to lower the groundwater levels within this 100 metre operational area which clearly included Mr L Mills lease?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) In light of the DoE letter dated 26 May 2006 which in part states ‘I also note that the report expects there to be limited opportunity to extract groundwater from this area and that the current operating strategy should remain’, can the Minister explain why the DoE appears unable to support legitimate environmental objectives seemingly to the advantage of KCGM?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(1) Can the Minister state how many metres is the boundary of Prospecting Licence 26/3126 from the closest point of the bottom toe of the Fimiston 1 tailings dam wall?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Is it correct that the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 states ‘It must be recognised that groundwater level management is most difficult near to the TSF’s with these levels having the greatest potential to fluctuate due to deposition of tailings within the nearby paddock and the location of the supernatant poll on the TSF surface. About two thirds of all the groundwater bores in the Eastern Borefield are within 100 metres of the TSF for this reason (see Bore Location). In general, within this 100 metre halo around the facility there is limited vegetation as most of the infrastructure associated with the operational area equates to about 20 per cent of the TSF’s footprint and is considered part of the facility. It may not be practical to lower groundwater levels within this operational area below four metres BGS and so this area is not considered in the GMP objective while the TSF’s are operational’?
(4) If no to (3), will the Minister quote the specific text from the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005?
(5) Did the ‘100 metre halo’ ‘operational area’ shown in blue on an attached map referred to in the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 encroach upon the environment of Mr Laurie Mills lease P26/3126?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), how did this come about?
(8) Can the Minister explain why did the DoE allow KCGM to alter the draft KCGM seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 2005 without addressing the fact that KCGM had clearly stated that it may be impracticable to lower the groundwater levels within this 100 metre operational area which clearly included Mr L Mills lease?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) In light of the DoE letter dated 26 May 2006 which in part states ‘I also note that the report expects there to be limited opportunity to extract groundwater from this area and that the current operating strategy should remain’, can the Minister explain why the DoE appears unable to support legitimate environmental objectives seemingly to the advantage of KCGM?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 September 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
77 days
(1-11) Refer to questions on notice 3756; 3645; 3639; 3638; 3637; 3636; 3635; 3544; 3543; 3542; 3540; 3510; 3410; 3409; 3408; 3407; 3406; 3376; 3373; 3372; 3371; 3358; 3223; 3222; 3221; 3215; 3214; 3213; 3212; 3211; 3208; 3207; 3206; 3205; 3202; 3201; 3200; 2956; 2955; 2954; 2953; 2952; 2951; 2895; 2894; 2891; 2890; 2887; 2886; 2885; 2884; 2883; 2879; 2877; 2876; 2875; 2761; 2893; 2889; 2888; 2878; 2616; 2615; 2614; 2613; 2612; 2611; 2610; 2609; 2608; 2598; 2585; 2584; 2583; 2582; 2543; 2546; 2545; 1269; 1262; 1129; 1128; 1120; 1039; 956; 943; 939; 805; 795; 786; 664; 657; 667; 665; 576; 532; 393; 112; 111; 110.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.