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

Case Study ~ unforeseen change in scope
In July 2008, the (then) Environmental Protection Agency conducted a standard inspection of a mine and recommended
three ‘small and straightforward’ changes to the EA. In February 2009, DERM’s regional office provided a redrafted EA. The
draft contained significant variations to the original EA. These included changes through every schedule including the
insertion of whole new schedules. This appeared to be an attempt to implement new ‘standard’ EA conditions for a mining
operation.
These unforeseen amendments created a period of uncertainty for the project while conditions were negotiated (another
three drafts were provided by DERM for review before finalising the amendment in November 2009). The draft conditions
contained significant implications for capital investment and mine resources that would be needed to meet the additional
reporting and compliance requirements. It also affected the mine’s ability to implement existing conditions that were due to
be superseded or removed by the draft conditions.
Industry is concerned that any amendment,
however minor, to an EA is used as an
opportunity to refresh and update the entire
document. Some of these changes involve
dramatic new compliance and reporting
responsibilities. Industry’s suggestion is that
EAs should be left to stand, with operational
amendments given effect (if necessary)
through the environmental management plans
(EMP).
A more structured risk-focused approach
would help to shift assessment effort into key
areas of concern, and provide a formal and
transparent mechanism for matching the
assessment investment against areas of need.
Industry Working Group recommendation
r. Develop a risk-based assessment process,
particularly in establishing the terms of
reference for an Environmental Impact
Statement and the conditions of an
Environmental Authority, so both reflect the
likelihood of significant impacts.
REGULATORY CONTINUITY
Regulatory continuity – authorities and other
negotiated regulatory instruments are only
reopened under extreme (and well defined)
circumstances.
A recent DEEDI workshop on legislative
reforms for the coal-seam gas industry
identified a set of 53 reforms (appendix 3). A
number of submissions from CSG companies
expressed some concern with the progress of
these reforms and suggested that these
issues should be reinforced in this report.
Given the commodity specific nature of these
reforms, it would seem appropriate that the
peak coal-seam gas industry group –
Australian Petroleum Production and
Exploration Association (APPEA) - be
responsible for reviewing these reforms and
developing an agreed industry approach.
However, as there are a number of other
sectors who will be impacted by these reforms
– including oil shale and underground coal
gasification – this initial set of industryproposed
reforms should then form the basis
of a formal government consultation process.
Following issues under Petroleum and Gas
(Production and Safety) Act 2004 (PGA) were
identified by submissions from CSG industry
members. APPEA may initially wish to
consider those issues including:
Petroleum Facilities Licence (PFL)
There is a proposal to remove the
requirement to have a Petroleum
Facilities Licence (PFL) under the PGA
in order to construct a Liquid Natural
Gas (LNG) facility. A couple of
companies have proceeded to invest in
the development of the LNG projects in
Queensland on the basis of regulatory
certainty, including the requirement to
hold a PFL. Unless a transition can be
mapped out, industry will continue to be
wary of the risks that such an
page 22