Olive Downs Project

• Section 1 – Introduction ( 18.5 MB)
• Section 2 – Response to submissions on the draft EIS ( 106 KB)
• Section 3 – Environmental authority ( 965 KB)
• Section 4 – Rehabilitation ( 754 KB)
• Section 5 – Response to IESC advice ( 746 KB)
• Section 6 – Matters of national environmental significance – General ( 172 KB)
• Section 7 – Matters of national environmental significance – Listed threatened species ( 5.9 MB)
• Section 8 – Matters of national environmental significance – Wetlands ( 1.4 MB)
• Section 9 – Matters of national environmental significance – Australian painted snipe ( 823 KB)
• Section 10 – Biodiversity offset strategy – All stages ( 237 MB)
• Section 11 – Biodiversity offset strategy – Stage 1 ( 198 MB)
• Section 12 – Fauna species management plan ( 231 MB)
• Section 13 – Groundwater ( 1.4 MB)
• Section 14 – Surface water – Water quality and hydrology ( 239 KB)
• Section 15 – Cumulative impact assessment – hydrology and flooding ( 12.6 MB)
• Section 16 – Transport ( 6.1 MB)
• Section 17 – Waste ( 122 KB)
• Section 18 – Land use impacts ( 256 kB)
• Section 19 – Essential habitat ( 557 KB)
• Section 20 – Ripstone Creek diversion ( 218 KB)
• Section 21 – Impact avoidance and minimisation ( 212 KB)
• Section 22 – Proponents commitments ( 393 KB)
• Section 23 – Social impact assessment ( 875 KB)
• Section 24 – Consideration of mined land rehabilitation policy ( 288 KB)
• Section 25 – Reference ( 151 KB)

• Appendix A – Response to submissions received on the draft EIS ( 2.8 MB)
• Appendix B – Proposed environmental authority conditions ( 1.7 MB)
• Appendix C – MEDLI modelling ( 3.9 MB)
• Appendix D – Additional information of the rehabilitation strategy ( 4.6 MB)
• Appendix E – Assessment of groundwater dependent ecosystems and wetlands ( 8.6 MB)
• Appendix F – Biodiversity offset strategy for matters of national environmental significance ( 29.2 MB)
• Appendix G – Additional information to the road transport assessment ( 6.1 MB)
• Appendix H – Water management program ( 1.2 MB)
• Appendix I – Preliminary workforce house and accommodation plan ( 649 KB)
• Appendix J – Preliminary health and community wellbeing management plan ( 461 KB)

• Executive summary ( 23 MB)
• Table of contents ( 268 KB)
• Section 1 – Introduction ( 2.3 MB)
• Section 2 – Project description ( 16 MB)
• Section 3 – Assessment of Matters of National Environmental Significance ( 33 MB)
• Section 4 – Assessment of Project Specific Matters ( 20 MB)
• Section 5 – Rehabilitation Strategy ( 13 MB)
• Section 6 – General Environmental Protection Commitments and Model Conditions ( 1.5 MB)
• Section 7 – References ( 212 KB)
• Section 8 – Abbreviations, Acronyms, Glossary and Definitions ( 304 KB)
• Attachment 1 – Olive Downs Project Terms of Reference ( 343 KB)
• Attachment 2 – Olive Downs Project Terms of Reference Reconciliation Table ( 512 KB)
• Attachment 3 – Regulatory Framework ( 432 KB)
• Attachment 4 – Peer Review Letters ( 930 KB)
• Attachment 5 – Public Consultation Report ( 314 KB)

• Appendix A –Terrestrial Flora Assessment - part A ( 62 MB)
• Appendix A –Terrestrial Flora Assessment - part B ( 75 MB)
• Appendix B –Terrestrial Fauna Assessment ( 72 MB)
• Appendix C – Aquatic Ecology Assessment ( 75 MB)
• Appendix D – Groundwater Assessment ( 85 MB)
• Appendix E – Surface Water Assessment - Part A ( 21 MB)
• Appendix E – Surface Water Assessment - Part B ( 12 MB)
• Appendix F – Flood Assessment ( 207 MB)
• Appendix G – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment ( 7.9 MB)
• Appendix H – Social Impact Assessment ( 4.7 MB)
• Appendix I – Economic Assessment ( 1.3 MB)
• Appendix J – Road Transport Assessment ( 14 MB)
• Appendix K – Noise and Vibration Assessment ( 34 MB)
• Appendix L – Geochemistry Assessment ( 2.1 MB)
• Appendix M – Soil and Land Suitability Assessment ( 77 MB)
• Appendix N – Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Assessment ( 10 MB)
• Appendix O – Preliminary Risk Assessment ( 2.7 MB)

Olive Downs is a metallurgical coal mine 40km south-east of Moranbah, within 5km of 25 operating coal mines. The coal from this site is steelmaking coal, of a higher grade of coal and is used to produce coke, the essential ingredient in the production of steel.

It was declared a coordinated project under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act) on 17 February 2017.

The Coordinator-General required Pembroke Resources (Pembroke) to prepare an EIS for the project which then progressed through the statutory EIS process under the SDPWO Act; including public notification and consultation with government advisory agencies.

The public and government advisory agencies were invited to make submissions on:

• draft terms of reference adequately covers all the matters the project proponent must address when preparing the EIS; and
• draft EIS and the revised EIS adequately addresses the terms of reference, including the project’s potential environmental impacts and the effectiveness of measures the proponent proposes to manage those impacts.

At the conclusion of the EIS process, the then Coordinator-General released a report evaluating the EIS on 13 May 2019. The Coordinator-General considered the EIS documentation submitted by the proponent, all advice received from government advisory agencies and public submissions. All impacts were assessed on merit and conditions were included in the evaluation report that he regarded as appropriate to ensure that post-mining, the land will be stable, safe and non-polluting.

An evaluation report is not a project approval that allows a project to commence and does not exempt a proponent of obligation to apply to the relevant authorities and obtain all necessary approvals; including a mining lease and environmental authority.

Pembroke applied to the Department of Environment and Science for an environmental authority for the project prior to the commencement of the government’s new rehabilitation provisions (Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018). The environmental authority application was required to be assessed under the transitional provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

In October 2018, the department told the Coordinator-General that it considered Pembroke’s draft assessment of the impact of the final voids on the floodplain as insufficient in detail and lacking the necessary commitments in rehabilitating the voids. Its submission to the draft EIS also stated the company had failed to properly assess the void’s impact on the Isaac River, groundwater, groundwater ecosystems and flood risks to neighbouring properties. What did the Coordinator-General do to ensure these requests for further assessments and concerns were addressed by Pembroke Resources?

In response to submissions received on the draft environmental impact statement, including the submission from the Department of Environment and Science, the then Coordinator-General decided to seek additional information from the proponent in relation to a range of issues, including further information about final voids, groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems and flood risks to neighbouring properties. Pembroke submitted the additional information, referred to as a revised draft EIS, to the Coordinator-General on 21 March 2019.  This additional information was sent to the Department of Environment and Science for further review and comment.

In May 2019, in response to the revised Environmental Impact Statement, the department wrote to the Coordinator General stating many of its key concerns and requests for further information were still unanswered by Pembroke and its plan to leave voids and waste rock emplacements did not meet the government’s expectations. It said it did not have enough information to set rehabilitation conditions and that Pembroke’s was “unacceptable.” After this correspondence and before approving the mine, what did the Coordinator General do to seek further information from Pembroke to meet the requests of the department?

Subsequent to the May 2019 submission from the Department of Environment and Science, the then Coordinator-General sought further information from the proponent in relation to the proposal to leave final voids and waste rock emplacements. Pembroke provided additional information which was considered by the Coordinator-General prior to the release of the evaluation report.

Why did the Coordinator General approve the mine and set conditions with the final voids, despite repeated concerns from the department of environment and science?

As stated in the CGER, the then Coordinator-General “consider(ed) the proposed final voids to represent a manageable and relatively low risk to environmental values.  Taking into account the overall benefits of the project for the region and state”.

Note that Pembroke advice that the project will create 500 construction jobs and 1000 operational jobs for the next 80 years. Pembroke also estimate $8 billion will be added to the local economy, and $10 billion to the State economy.

Why did the Coordinator-General use many of Pembroke’s proposed conditions for rehabilitation, which the department had said were unacceptable?

The Coordinator-General regarded Pembroke’s proposed conditions for rehabilitation as consistent with the expectations of the regulatory framework which applied to the project. The Olive Downs Project was a transitional project under the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018. This meant that the new progressive rehabilitation framework did not apply to the project.  The CGER states the proposed conditions “would ensure that there is no uncontrolled release of water from the final voids to the Isaac River floodplain.”

Did the Coordinator-General ignore the departments requests for further information and assessments when he approved the mine despite its concerns?

The Coordinator-General sought additional information from Pembroke in relation to the Department of Environment and Science requests in October 2018 and May 2019.

Toni Power
Coordinator-General
Queensland