supporting resource sector growth - Queensland Mining and Safety ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW supporting resource sector growth 30 April 2010 One company provided an example where it sought an amendment to an EA to allow the discharge of permeate from a reverse osmosis plant into a river. The amendment application was submitted in August 2009 on which the public review period closed in October 2009 and no comments were received. DERM requested the company to address a draft hierarchy of assessment of discharge in January 2010, which was submitted in March 2010. The company later learnt that the hierarchy was developed after the public review period was closed. To this date, DERM is still considering the application. Clearly, the assessment is delayed because the rules changed while the application progressed. Lack of coherent and sustainable guidelines for rehabilitation of exploration sites and other low-impact ground disturbances has been cited in submissions as a significant impediment for companies to ascertain what is required. One company recently experienced difficulty in dealing with DERM over rehabilitation of low impact disturbances in dry climates. According to the company’s submission, department-mandated criteria are suited to cooler, wetter climates and are not best practice or appropriate for all climates. The conditions imposed should reflect climatic suitability, resulting in better environmental outcomes. Examples were also cited of incidents where departmental guidelines became binding policies without prior knowledge of the project proponents. This practice erodes the inherent flexibility provided by guidelines to suit different projects based on their respective size, nature of operation, surrounding environment and other variability. ‘Where Queensland guidelines for perceived issues are not available (for example ‘neutral mine drainage’ or ‘radioactivity’) DERM appears to expect industry to develop the guidelines on a trial and error basis. This results in delays and significant costs to those companies that are at the forefront of those issues (or perceived issues). Should new standards/guidelines be required, DERM should commit resources to their development prior to ‘enforcing’ quantification and remediation of such issues on industry.’ Industry submission Certainty of applicable regulation and policy is critical for making investment decisions. Any later addition of new scope has the risk of delay and confusion, adding expense and uncertainty to the process. ‘DERM should not be able to change processes without some negotiation or at the very least notification to relevant operators. It is extremely embarrassing and potentially damaging from a business perspective, to advise a client a certain process will be accepted (based on what has been accepted in previous projects) then to have that client’s project delayed due to DERM changing that process without any notification.’ Industry submission Industry Working Group recommendation k. Publish guidelines and templates to clarify departmental intent – further, industry recommends the development of a clear notification process to avoid confusion when these documents are being developed or updated. Reviewing and awarding tenure During the then Department of Mines and Energy proposed technical amendments to MRA in early 2009, a number of issues were raised by the industry through the Queensland Resources Council to address inconsistencies in the legislation and allow for more certainty for both the industry and relevant page 16
REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESSES INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP REVIEW supporting resource sector growth 30 April 2010 stakeholders. Some of those issues are still unresolved and were raised again during this review, including: 1. S 237 Drilling and other activities on land not included in surface area: a. Mandatory landowner consent for ‘drilling and other activities’ on land not included in surface area Currently any ‘drilling and other activities’ undertaken on a mining lease (ML), but outside of surface area, are required to have prior written consent of landowners. Given that the MRA does not provide a framework to address any rejection from a landowner, this provides an effective right of veto to what are exploration related activities on a higher form of tenure. The current framework is inconsistent with exploration tenure rights. Regrettably this creates an adversarial approach to commercial discussions on access to land already covered by a ML. In effect, a ML holder has fewer rights to conduct such activities in those parts of a ML than if they held a lesser exploration tenure. It is recommended that rights to conduct exploration type activities, commensurate with the perquisite tenure, over land covered by a ML be enabled. This could be achieved through a transparent process to ensure that S 237 cannot be used as a right of veto over exploration activities undertaken on an ML. b. Greater flexibility for transfer of tenure Industry seeks a statutory process to enable the subdivision of exploration permits for coal. While currently there is a convoluted process to achieve this outcome through the use of conditional surrender processes, a transparent statutory process would be more practical and would use less administrative resources. c. Assignment of applications When applications for EPs are approaching grant there are circumstances that give rise to the ability to assign applications. For example, in certain situations where the progress of an application towards grant has taken a considerable period of time, there may be practical issues where the original parties no longer exist. Industry is willing to initiate further discussions with DEEDI to resolve this matter either through a set of policy guidelines or legislative amendments, if required. 2. S 279 Clarification of renewals of MLs and Compensation Agreements Industry supports greater clarification surrounding the circumstances where the landowners may have changed and/or the process by which landowners are made fully aware of tenure processes. Industry could benefit from: a greater clarity on the effect of compensation (eg the extent to which the agreement is binding on subsequent parties) b Appropriate notification process - for example, Notation on Land Title - to inform new or potential landowners of the circumstances surrounding previous agreements. 3. S 318CN Incidental coal-seam gasroyalty obligations Amendments contained in the Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, page 17
Page 1: SUPPORTING RESOURCE SECTOR GROWTH I
Page 4 and 5: contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 6 and 7: A world-class approvals system woul
Page 8 and 9: REVIEW OF QUEENSLAND’S EXPLORATIO
Page 32 and 33: Case Study ~ unforeseen change in s
Page 38 and 39: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Phase 1 -

supporting resource sector growth - Queensland Mining and Safety ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?