The long-awaited judgment in NSW Environment Protection Authority’s prosecution of Maules Creek Coal mine blast, which caused the nearby Boggabri Coal mine to evacuate workers in the path of horrendous shockwaves and a wall of dust and fumes, has been delivered by Justice Sarah Pritchard of the NSW Land and Environment Court. 896,256kg (or around 1,000 tonnes) of explosives were used in the offending blast.
Justice Pritchard finds the Whitehaven Coal-operated mine guilty of all 4 criminal charges prosecuted by the EPA, concluding that the mine did not blast in a competent manner in accordance with its environment protection licence. The charges included 1. The quick-timing charge, 2. The stemming charge, 3. Overloading of blast holes, and 4. Breach of noise provisions in Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).
Video footage of the blast on 20th August 2020 was obtained through Government Information Public Access by the Wando Conservation and Cultural Centre, Maules Creek.
The hearing of the charges, which commenced in January 2023, was repeatedly frustrated by attempts of Whitehaven Coal to disrupt the case including a failed attempt to overthrow the Judge herself based on unfounded claims of apprehended bias.
Public scrutiny of the prosecutions has been considerable, despite attempts by Whitehaven to suppress videos of the extraordinary blast which not only is alleged to have injured Boggabri Coal workers but its proximity severely impacted the critically endangered ecological community of White Box Grassy Woodland at the Leard Forest.
The video shows disregard for the adjacent Federally-listed woodland (borne out by the mine’s Biodiversity Corridor Plan, whose risk assessment does not identify blasting as a potential hazard to the corridor). Maules Creek Coal also failed in its responsibility to Boggabri Coal workers. (Boggabri Coal is owned by the Japanese Idemitsu Resources). The Blast Clearance Plan grossly underestimates the impact zone from the blast.
In his closing address to the Court, Whitehaven’s barrister also referred sarcastically to the neighbouring Leard Forest, a Commonwealth-listed Critically Endangered Ecological Community of White Box Grassy Woodland as “Garden of Eden next to a hole”, which he also claimed his client had no responsibility to consider when designing a blast.
Shot Firer David Welch warned Whitehaven Coal management not to go ahead with the blast, saying he had never seen a blast design like that, but was persuaded that adequate advice had been sought as to blast design and telling him they said they’d tried it in other countries on another mine site.
The case will return to the Land and Environment Court on 31st October 2024 for sentencing pleas.
Let’s hope the punishment for these offences is at least proportional to the extreme lengths the Whitehaven legal team went to avoid conviction, assuming of course that they will seeking to appeal.
I’m a baby boomer. we NEVER had to think is the water or air clean. rape of environment was limited by the tools used. I’ve never in my life felt so distressed and powerless as the fascist rules roll out to stop all actions to stop the damage to us and our environment
Ultimately, the Shotfirer is responsible for the blast, and they have final say whether the blast in its current form is safe to fire. There is always significant pressure on the Shotfirer from Management to expedite production, whether it is actual or perceived. Much of current blast design practices don’t involve the Shotfirer at all but are carried out by Mining Engineers whose blast design experience can be excellent to non-existent. In a nutshell, the Shotfirer is required legally to accept responsibility for a blast that they have had zero input into.
I’m almost certain a change management or RA were not conducted for these major changes to this shot design (timing and reduction in stemming lengths). If they were conducted, this design wouldn’t had been implemented. I am aware of similar shot designs fired in other countries as mentioned in the article, and they look very similar to the results we witnessed at Whitehaven. Poor risk assessment.