30 September The reality of resourcing the future September 30, 2022 By ER Law Admin Conference, General, Industry, Resources and Energy Energy Transition, Powering the future, ER Law Annual Conference 0 Laurence Dyer, Associate Professor, Curtin University The energy transition is revolutionary in the mining and metals production space but it is not a straightforward enterprise. It has completely changed the outlook of our industry to the point that everything is shifting from research to commodity production and the way we source metals. But there is often a disconnect between the energy transition and what it will take to produce the metals required for the energy transition. At the ER Law Annual Conference in October, I will be talking about what it really means to produce the metals required to fuel the transition, what kind of volumes will be required and what that means from a supply perspective. There are many varied elements that are required to fuel the energy transition and each has a very different set of requirements and systems around them. For example, nickel is relatively open in terms of primary production whereas rare earth minerals have been China dominated. The way the Chinese have set up the market means that they have a monopoly on supply and demand as well as the technology. This makes it very challenging for anyone else to develop a supply chain because you have to compete with a far more mature technological market. When we look at some of the smaller production elements, like germanium and selenium, there are other challenges. These elements are critical to supporting the energy transition but the volumes we need are thousands of times more than are currently produced. Nobody currently produces these elements as a primary product because there hasn't been a market value for them. As demand pushes the price of these minerals up it may actually make them viable to produce at much higher volumes. The question of volume is relative though. Take copper for example, it’s also essential to support the transition but it’s already an enormous industry so we only need to increase its production by two or three times over the next 30 years. Doubling the size of that industry is a completely different prospect than increasing the production of one of these very small specialty elements by one thousand times. Even if we can scale up production of these elements there are other factors that need to be considered. What is the environmental impact of increased production? Where is the resource going to be produced? Where are the reagents going to come from? Take cobalt for example. About 70% of it comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which raises concerns about ethical supply. A mining company has to not only think about reducing carbon emissions and making sure their processes are environmentally sound, but they also have to worry about who their producers are and where they sell their product. If they can show their green credentials and ethical processing systems from the very start through to where their product is sold they can command a premium. This is different to what we’ve experienced in the past. We're also really starting to see a push into a circular economy, which requires that these metals are recycled as much as physically possible. Therefore, every product and waste stream needs to be considered for recycling or repurposing to this end and to continue to shrink the environmental footprint. Recycling of products then also has implications for manufacturing processes. Take lithium ion battery recycling. Normally, to recycle a solid we shred materials then try to pull apart all of the different components and separate them out. If you do that with a battery it is relatively dangerous and as soon as you shred all of the components they get mixed together and it makes them much harder to separate. So current technology makes it infeasible to properly recycle these batteries, which turns something that contributes to renewable power into a significant legacy issue in terms of hazardous waste. To create a circular economy we now need to look at the manufacturing process to see if we can make a battery that's easy to take apart and recycle as well. The mining industry is in a renaissance. We have an opportunity not just for massive economic gains but to rebrand the industry as well. Many see the industry as old and dirty, but it’s also necessary to feed economic growth and the energy transition. Anywhere that technology can take us, mining has to be a part of it - it’s core to everything we do going forward. So making sure the industry can support the energy transition and everything that comes with it is critical. To hear more about how we resource the future, you can register to attend the ER Law Annual Conference HERE Related Articles Future Gas Strategy The Future Gas Strategy was released on 9 May. Gas continues to be important to Australia through the energy transition with natural gas currently meeting 27% of our energy needs and nearly 20% of export income. The Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, highlights in the document that gas is a transition fuel that is required until renewable alternatives are viable. She also highlights the need for greenhouse gas emissions associated with gas to decline, abated or offset. In line with this the Strategy anticipates that demand for gas may increase until alternative energy sources are available but by 2050 demand is expected to be significantly reduced. The Federal Budget: A Future Made in Australia On Tuesday May 14, Dr Chalmers delivered the Federal Budget for 2025. A central part of the budget was the Future Made in Australia initiative which committed $22.7 billion over the next decade to attract investment and propel Australia as a renewable energy superpower globally. This is aimed at accelerating investment in priority industries that include critical minerals processing, renewable hydrogen, low carbon liquid fuels, green metals (which include some commodities produced using low-carbon technologies) and the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. Navigating the Future: Updates from the US, Japan, and New Zealand As the global energy landscape undergoes rapid transformation, nations around the world continue to redefine their strategies to address climate change, energy security, and economic sustainability. In this article, we delve into the latest updates from three diverse countries: the United States, Japan, and New Zealand. QUEENSLAND’S MINE REHABILITATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VOIDS: ENSHAM CASE STUDY The State of Queensland reformed its mine rehabilitation legislation, namely the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act), in 2018 through the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018 (Qld) (MERFP Act). A case study of the Ensham open-cut coal mine[i] in central Queensland highlights three issues for the efficacy of this regulatory framework. The first issue concerns an available exclusion of rehabilitation requirements for existing mining voids (the area of excavation created by open cut mining) in flood plains. Under the EP Act, as amended by the MERFP Act, a holder of an environmental authority (EA) may, in its Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plan (PRCP) and PRCP Schedule, identify land as a Non-use Management Area (NUMA).[ii] This is land that would not be rehabilitated “to a stable condition” and not have a post-mining land use. This rehabilitation exception as a NUMA is not applicable to mining voids wholly or partly in flood plains – these must be rehabilitated to a “stable condition”,[iii] as defined in the EP Act. This is the “section 126D(3) rehabilitation obligation”.[iv] However, the transitional provisions of the mining rehabilitation reforms differentiate the rehabilitation obligations of pre-existing mines (those existing at the time of the reforms, such as the Ensham Mine) and new site-specific mines.[v] Pre-existing mines with a “land outcome document” that presents an outcome similar to a NUMA can establish criteria for rehabilitation or management of a void in a flood plain that supersede this section 126D(3) rehabilitation obligation.[vi] The MERFP Bill Explanatory Notes for the transitional provisions reveal that this exemption from section 126D(3) “does not retrospectively breach existing rights and provides certainty to industry on the transitional process”.[vii] However, this grandfathering is arguably disconnected from environmental risks of such residual voids, creating two classes of mines based on the timing of a mine’s existence (pre-existing versus new). This Ensham case study provides an example of a pre-existing mine’s use of a “land outcome document” to exempt rehabilitation of residual voids in a flood plain but without clarity around the non-use management status of the area of the residual voids. The second issue discussed in this case study is progressive rehabilitation. The design of a financial assurance system to increase progressive rehabilitation was “a clear objective of the EPA’s work in 2004”, yet the EP Act fell short by failing to clearly outline criteria for certification of final rehabilitation for industry, and a scheme of refunding financial assurances at the termination of mining activity.[viii] These issues remained unaddressed until the 2015 State election when the then Labor Opposition ran on the campaign “[to] investigate the expansion of upfront rehabilitation bonds for resource companies to fully fund long-term rehabilitation activities”.[ix] Thereafter, the Queensland Treasury Corporation published a number of discussion papers advising of the shortcomings of the current financial assurance framework and that, in 2017, there were “220,000 hectares of disturbance, with an estimated rehabilitation cost of $8.7 billion”.[x] Queensland’s 2018 mining regulation amendments concerning progressive rehabilitation were intended to ensure “rigorous” review of NUMA approvals in PRCPs, “through an objective public interest evaluation” for future or newly established mines.[xi] However, the reforms may not effectively address instances in which progressive rehabilitation has been lacking in large, open-cut, mature mines in operation at the time of these legislative changes. As of 2021, approximately 33% of the Ensham Mine’s 4,944.7 ha of scheduled rehabilitation areas had been progressively rehabilitated.[xii] According to Ensham’s PRCP, this level of progressive rehabilitation exceeds that of other open-cut mines in Queensland.[xiii] For established mines, such as Ensham, that are approaching closure and have large voids that have not been substantially progressively rehabilitated across their mine life, the most economical rehabilitation option may be to rehabilitate residual voids to accord with legislated requirements. Under Queensland’s legislation, “rehabilitation” does not necessarily mean these voids will be re-filled. This may be contrary to community understanding of what rehabilitation is. Thirdly, this case study highlights areas in the regulatory framework in which information transparency could be improved – particularly public access to information – which raises issues of accountability, quality of community engagement and, ultimately, social licence on the part of mining companies and government. Information transparency is also relevant to community engagement and expectations for rehabilitation, such as the meaning of “rehabilitation” of residual voids (i.e., refilling to establish a pre-mining state versus the legislated “stable condition” standard). This article is structured as follows. Part 2 presents the legal and operational context of the Ensham Mine. It also describes the operational history of flooding and its relevance to rehabilitation and management of post-mining residual risks, which leads to a discussion of the rehabilitation legal reforms. Part 3 discusses the reform of Queensland’s rehabilitation legislation framework as it concerns residual voids, including the transitional provisions of the EP Act. Part 3 also explores Ensham’s Residual Void Project (RVP) for the development of the rehabilitation criteria for residual voids and considers the community engagement process. Part 4 comments on the transitional regulatory design issues in Queensland’s framework, issues concerning progressive rehabilitation of pre-existing open-cut mines such as Ensham, as well as transparency of information and community consultation. Part 5 concludes and suggests future research. POWERING CONSUMER PROTECTIONS: WHY DECENTRALISED AND DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES WARRANT A NEW LENS ON CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS Recent years have seen distributed energy resources usher in a new era of self-generation and reduced reliance on traditional centralised energy networks. Australian customers are increasingly enabled to access unconventional “behind the meter” energy sources and contribute to a two-way flow of energy back to the grid. Submission - DISER Consultation Paper December 2020 ‘Enhancing Australia’s decommissioning framework for offshore oil and gas activities’ Showing 0 Comment Comments are closed.