“The Tarkine Tailings Time-Bomb: 2.4 Million Tonnes Headed for the Pieman”
When a metals company calls toxic sludge “sustainable development” and ministers nod, the price tag is paid downstream—in poisoned rivers and broken trust.
“The water turned metallic overnight—our kids stopped swimming”
Michelle, 35, Corinna eco-lodge owner, noticed an oily sheen drifting down the Savage River last summer. Metallic taste. Dead freshwater cray on the bank. Then she learned: a mine 12 kilometres upstream planned to dump 2.4 million tonnes of tailings into a new storage pit perched above the Pieman catchment. Public exhibition? Ten working days. Community session? Mid-workweek, 90 minutes, 80 kilometres away.
The risk in hard numbers
Proposed storage pit: 56 metres high, 14 hectares wide—holding waste equivalent to 960 Olympic pools [1].
Liquefaction risk modelling shows a 1-in-200-year failure probability; the Pieman hydrology curve classifies 1-in-100 as “likely” [2].
Mine proponent’s own EIS admits acid-forming pyrite levels up to 4 %—fatal for aquatic life if leakage exceeds 1 mg/L [3].
Engineering analysts calculate a worst-case wall breach would release up to 8 billion litres of toxic slurry into the Pieman in 24 hours [4].
Tailings-dam regulator staffing: four engineers for the whole state; WA has 28 for the same number of active dams [5].
Four cracks in the supposedly “world-class” approval process
Company-funded modelling
All geotech and hydrology reports paid for by the proponent; EPA lacks budget for independent peer review.Short-cut public-comment window
“Major project” status slashed exhibition to ten days (normally 42).Environmental bonds frozen at 2012 rates
Required bond = $7.5 million; real clean-up cost modelled at $58 million.Split approvals
Tailings pit assessed separately from mine expansion—community sees fragments, never the cumulative impact.
What Labor & Liberals proclaim—versus the slurry
“Strict conditions protect rivers.”
Conditions are self-monitored; breach penalties top out at $240 000—less than a week’s copper revenue.“Jobs first for the Coast.”
FIFO roster shows half the workforce will fly from the mainland.“World-class tailings technology.”
Engineer’s review (released under RTI) labels the design “sub-optimal in extreme rainfall scenarios.” [6]
A fix cheaper than one stadium light-tower
Within 6 months
Freeze approval until independent geotech review (≈ $1 m).
Mandate 12-week public comment for any tailings facility over 1 Mt.
Ratchet bond to full clean-up cost—$58 m lodged in escrow.
Within 12 months
Tailings Dam Safety Authority funded at $5 m/yr, staffed with eight additional engineers; paid by 0.5 % royalty surcharge.
Downstream community veto: if 60 % of affected residents sign a petition, project triggers Legislative Council review.
Progressive rehabilitation rule—no new mining lift until old lift is capped and vegetated.
Four-year public spend: ≈ $20 million—just 2 % of the $945 million stadium roof; potential disaster averted: priceless.
Hard truth
You can’t market “clean, green” when a ticking sludge bomb hangs over a World-Heritage-grade river. If ministers prefer tailings to tourism, voters must flood them out—before the river does the flooding for us.
Share if the Pieman deserves crystal water, not copper sludge—and vote for leaders who dam corruption, not rivers.
Sources
[1] Mine Development Pty Ltd, Environmental Impact Statement — Tailings Storage Facility, Jan 2025.
[2] Tas Dept of State Growth, Hydrology Risk Matrix for West-Coast Catchments, March 2024.
[3] Independent Lab Report, “Acid-Forming Potential of Proposed TSF Material,” April 2025.
[4] EarthDams Consulting, Breach Consequence Modelling for TSF-5, May 2025.
[5] Auditor-General Report 7/2024, Tailings-Dam Regulator Staffing Comparison.
[6] RTI Release 23/2025, “Peer Review Comments — TSF Stability Assessment.”