ABC 7.30 - 9 March 2021

Questions

• 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.