2.3.4.1 Developing the coal resource development pathway

2.3.4.1.1 Introduction

The coal resource development pathway (CRDP) is a fundamental concept in bioregional assessments (BA), and an important initial step in the model-data analysis component of any BA. It defines the most likely future that includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields commercially producing as of December 2012 (known as the baseline), as well as those expected to commence production post-2012. The difference in results between the baseline and the CRDP is the change that is primarily reported in a BA, and this is due to the additional coal resource development. The additional coal resource development is defined as all coal mines and CSG fields, including expansions of baseline operations, which are considered most likely to begin commercial production after December 2012.

The general input data and analysis required to develop the CRDP are outlined in companion submethodology M04 (as listed in Table 1) for developing a coal resource development pathway (Lewis, 2014). This section explains the specific application of this BA submethodology to the Galilee subregion, and builds upon the coal and CSG resource assessment provided in companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014). In particular, the catalogue of potential coal resource developments (Section 1.2.4 in companion product 1.2) provides the starting inventory for assessment of the CRDP. This catalogue lists 20 identified coal resources from the Galilee subregion with a combined thermal coal tonnage of about 36 billion tonnes, as well as three CSG projects with contingent (2C and 3C) resources.

The CRDP for the Galilee subregion is based on the Assessment team’s analysis of relevant coal resource information for each project in the catalogue of potential coal resource developments. The data and information used to inform this analysis comprised publicly available material as of December 2014. An important step in finalising the CRDP for the Galilee subregion was the critical discussion and expert input received at an external participant workshop held in Brisbane in October 2014. Representatives from the Australian Government Department of the Environment, CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, and the Queensland Government, as well as the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) and various coal and CSG development companies with interests in the Galilee subregion, all participated in this CRDP workshop. Following the discussion and information-sharing that occurred at this event, the Assessment team was able to finalise the CRDP in December 2014 and ‘lock it in’ as the basis for the future hydrological modelling in the BA (as reported in the surface water modelling (companion product 2.6.1 (Karim et al., 2018)) and groundwater modelling (companion product 2.6.2 (Peeters et al., 2018) for the Galilee subregion)).

2.3.4.1.2 Coal resource development pathway for the Galilee subregion

As documented in companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014) there were no coal mines or CSG fields in commercial production as of December 2012. Consequently, for the purposes of the BA, the modelled baseline does not include any coal resource developments.

In contrast to the baseline, the CRDP for the Galilee subregion consists of 17 proposed new coal and CSG resource developments (Table 10). Most of the developments in the CRDP are for new large-scale coal mines that target thermal coal resources hosted within upper Permian strata, such as the Betts Creek beds (companion product 1.1 for the Galilee subregion (Evans et al., 2014)). These proposed coal mines mainly occur close to the northern and eastern margins of the geological Galilee Basin (Figure 27), where the coal-bearing Permian rocks are relatively close to the surface (i.e. generally within several hundred metres), and thus amenable to future mining development.

On the basis of information available as of December 2014, the proposed coal mining operations included in the CRDP consist of:

three open-cut coal mines (Alpha, Hyde Park and Blackall[1])
two underground coal mines (Alpha West and Hughenden)
five combined open-cut and underground coal mining operations (Carmichael, China First, China Stone, Kevin’s Corner and South Galilee)
four coal mines of currently unknown type (Clyde Park, Milray, Pentland and West Pentland).

There are also three early-stage CSG projects included in the CRDP (Galilee Gas Project, focused on the Glenaras pilot site; Gunn pilot site; and Blue Energy’s CSG project in Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 812). The locations of the proposed coal mines and CSG developments in the CRDP are shown in Figure 27. Summary information about each development listed in the CRDP is provided in Table 10, including company name, total identified resources and expected start year and duration of mining. Further details about each of these proposed operations, including plans of several mine sites, are available in companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014).

Section 2.3.4.1.2.1 and Section 2.3.4.1.2.2 respectively provide details on coal resource developments in the CRDP that are included in the quantitative or qualitative assessment of hydrological changes.

Table 10 Coal resource development pathway for the Galilee subregion as determined at December 2014

The primary activity in bioregional assessments (BAs) is the comparison of two potential futures: (i) the baseline coal resource development (baseline), a future that includes all coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) fields that are commercially producing as of December 2012; and (ii) the coal resource development pathway (CRDP), a future that includes all coal mines and CSG fields that are in the baseline as well as those that are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012. The difference in results between CRDP and baseline is the change that is primarily reported in a BA. This change is due to the additional coal resource development – all coal mines and CSG fields, including expansions of baseline operations, which are expected to begin commercial production after December 2012.

Name of existing operation or proposed development	Coal mine or coal seam gas (CSG) operation	Company	Included in the baseline?	Included in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP)? (modelled or commentary)	Start of mining operations or estimated project start	Expected duration of commercial operations	Total coal resources (Mt) (for coal mining) or gas resources (PJ) (for CSG)	Comments
Alpha Coal Project	Open-cut coal mine	GVK Hancock Coal	No	Yes – modelled	2018	30 years	1821 Mt	Total coal resource is 821 Mt measured, 700 Mt indicated and 300 Mt inferred, and is mostly from the C and D coal seams of the Betts Creek beds. Geology and coal resource information in Hancock Prospecting (2010)
Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project	Combined open-cut and underground coal mine	Adani Mining Pty Ltd	No	Yes – modelled	2019	60 years	7800 Mt	Total coal resource is 500 Mt indicated and 7300 Mt inferred, and is mostly in AB and D coal seams. Coal resource information in Adani Mining (2012)
China First Coal Project	Combined open-cut and underground coal mine	Waratah Coal Pty Ltd	No	Yes – modelled	2021	30 years	3680 Mt	Total coal resource is 1975 Mt measured, 565 Mt indicated and 1140 Mt inferred. Coal resource information in Waratah Coal (2011)
China Stone Coal Project	Combined open-cut and underground coal mine	Macmines Austasia Pty Ltd	No	Yes – modelled	2022	50 years	5590 Mt	Total coal resource is 830 Mt measured, 1230 Mt indicated and 3530 Mt inferred. Coal resource and geology information in Hansen Bailey (2015)
Hyde Park Coal Project	Open-cut coal mine	Resolve Coal Pty Ltd	No	Yes – modelled	2022	30+ years	1625 Mt	Pre-feasibility study underway as of 2016. Total coal resource is 315 Mt indicated and 1310 Mt inferred, and is mostly in A and B, and C and D coal seams. Coal resource and geology information at Resolve Coal (2016)
Kevin's Corner Coal Project	Combined open-cut and underground mine	GVK Hancock Coal	No	Yes – modelled	2020	30 years	4269 Mt	Total coal resource is 229 Mt measured, 1040 Mt indicated and 3000 Mt inferred, to be mined from the A, B, C and D coal seams. Geology and coal resource data in Hancock Galilee (2011)
South Galilee Coal Project	Combined open-cut and underground coal mine	Alpha Coal Management Pty Ltd, on behalf of AMCI and Alpha Coal Pty Ltd	No	Yes – modelled	2021	33 years	1179 Mt	Total coal resource is 167 Mt measured, 206 Mt indicated and 806 Mt inferred, within the D1 and D2 coal seams. Coal resource and geology information in Alpha Coal (2012)
Alpha West Coal Project	Underground coal mine	GVK Hancock Coal	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	1800 Mt	Not able to be modelled for this iteration of Galilee subregion. Total coal resource is 500 Mt indicated and 1300 Mt inferred. Located immediately west of Alpha, initial concept plan indicates an underground longwall mining operation (Mulder, 2013)
Blackall Coal Project	Open-cut coal mine	East Energy Resources Limited	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	3445 Mt	Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. Total coal resource hosted in Cretaceous Winton Formation (Eromanga Basin) is 628 Mt indicated and 2817 Mt inferred. Coal resource information in EER (2014)
Clyde Park Coal Project	Coal mine of unknown type	TerraCom Limited (formerly Guildford Coal Limited)	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	728 Mt	Total coal resource is 51 Mt indicated and 677 Mt inferred. There is also a 40 to 815 Mt exploration target in adjacent tenement. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. Coal resource information at TerraCom (2016)
Hughenden Project	Underground coal mine	TerraCom Limited (formerly Guildford Coal Limited)	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	1209 Mt	Total coal resource is 133 Mt indicated and 1076 Mt inferred. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. Coal resource information at TerraCom (2016)
Pentland Coal Project	Coal mine of unknown type	Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	100 Mt	Total coal resource is 65 Mt measured, 15 Mt indicated and 20 Mt inferred. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. Coal resource information in GA and BREE (2013)
Milray	Coal mine of unknown type	Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	610 Mt	Inferred resource defined only. Not able to be modelled for this iteration of Galilee subregion
West Pentland Coal Project	Possibly open-cut coal mine, but no development plans as yet	United Queensland Resources Pty Limited (previously owned by New Emerald Coal Ltd)	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	266 Mt	Total coal resource is 176 Mt indicated and 90 Mt inferred, contained in five mineable seams. United Queensland Resources Pty Ltd gained ownership of New Emerald Coal Ltd in May 2015. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. Coal resource information in Xenith (2013)
Galilee Gas Project (Glenaras site)	CSG	Galilee Energy Limited	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	2C resource of 2508 PJ and 3C resource of 5314 PJ	CSG resource is in part of exploration permit for petroleum (EPP) 529, and focused on the Glenaras production pilot which has a number of test wells. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. CSG resource information at Galilee Energy (2016)
Gunn Project	CSG	Comet Ridge Limited	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	2C resource of 67 PJ and 3C resource of 1870 PJ	CSG resource is in part of EPP 744, in which there is also an identified 597 PJ of prospective resources. CSG production test well and exploration site. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. CSG resource information at Comet Ridge (2016)
Blue Energy's CSG exploration project EPP 813	CSG	Blue Energy Limited	No	Yes – commentary	Unknown	Unknown	2C resources of 62 PJ and 3C resource of 838 PJ	Resource is in part of CSG exploration project in EPP 813 in central Galilee Basin, in which there is also an identified 1142 PJ of prospective CSG resource. Not able to be modelled for this iteration for the Galilee subregion. CSG resource information at Blue Energy (2016)

Some coal and CSG resource figures for projects in this table differ from the resource figures previously published in companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014). Examples include the China Stone Coal Project, Galilee Gas Project and Blue Energy’s CSG exploration project. These differences reflect updated coal and CSG resource data published by the project owners since the October 2014 release of companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014). As far as possible, the most recent coal and CSG resource figures publicly available for each development project have been included in this table.

Figure 27 Proposed coal mines and coal seam gas operations in the coal resource development pathway for the Galilee subregion

The coal mine and CSG developments in the CRDP are the sum of those in the baseline and in the additional coal resource development. Because there are no coal resource developments in the baseline for the Galilee subregion, the CRDP only includes the proposed coal mine and CSG developments.

Data: Geoscience Australia (Dataset 1)

2.3.4.1.2.1 Quantitative assessment of hydrological changes of the coal resource development pathway

The CRDP for the Galilee subregion describes the most likely future (post 2012) for coal resource development, based on the Assessment team’s analysis of publicly available information and expert consultation undertaken in late 2014 (and ‘locked-in’ as of December 2014). This CRDP then forms the basis for the subsequent hydrological modelling for the BA (of both surface water and groundwater), which attempts to quantify the hydrological changes of the expected coal resource development. However, in order to undertake the type of numerical hydrological modelling specified for the BAs (see companion submethodology M06 for surface water modelling (Viney, 2016) and companion submethodology M07 for groundwater modelling (Crosbie et al., 2016) as listed in Table 1), there are minimum levels of data and information required for each of the coal resource developments in the CRDP.

The data requirements for both surface water and groundwater modelling in BAs are outlined in companion submethodology M04 (as listed in Table 1) for developing a coal resource development pathway (refer to Table 9 in Lewis, 2014). Important information required for hydrological modelling in BAs includes details of the type of coal resource extraction operation (e.g. open-cut, underground or combined development mine), time-series of the progression of mining and associated infrastructure areas (both in area and with depth), and the nature of the mine-site stratigraphy and depth to watertable.

Of the 17 coal resource developments in the CRDP, there are seven coal mines that are considered by the Assessment team to have sufficient information available to be quantitatively assessed through hydrological modelling. These proposed coal mines are: Alpha, Carmichael, China First, China Stone, Hyde Park, Kevin’s Corner and South Galilee (Figure 27). These seven coal mines are the most advanced mining developments in the Galilee subregion in terms of progressing through the various environmental and mining-related approvals processes that apply under relevant Queensland and Australian Government legislation. Most of these mines have previously undertaken very detailed planning and development studies to determine optimal mining and production methods. Importantly, much of the required information for BA modelling purposes has been made publicly available as part of environmental impact statements (EISs) for the individual mines (DSD, 2016).

The expected mine life and production rates for the seven mines that will be modelled in the BA are shown in Table 11. A simplified mine development schedule for the modelled CRDP has also been compiled based on available information. This is shown in Figure 28 and includes major stages such as the initial construction period, open-cut and/or underground mining operations, and the final rehabilitation and closure phase. These seven coal mines will be the focus for the later-stage quantitative assessment components of the BA including surface water modelling (companion product 2.6.1), groundwater modelling (companion product 2.6.2), receptor impact modelling (product 2.7), and impact and risk analysis (product 3-4).

Table 11 Production rates for coal mines in the coal resource development pathway that will be quantitatively assessed for the Galilee subregion

Proposed coal mine	Estimated annual production rate for run-of-mine coal^a (Mt/y)	Estimated production rate for product coal^b (Mt/y)	Estimated life of mine (years)
Alpha	42 (maximum)	30 (maximum)	30
Carmichael	74 (maximum)	60 (maximum)	60
China First	56 (maximum)	40 (maximum)	30
China Stone	55 (target)	38 (target)	50
Hyde Park	11^c	10^c	30+
Kevin’s Corner	40	26–27 (maximum)	30
South Galilee	17 (target)	15 (target)	33

^aRun-of-mine (ROM) coal refers to the tonnage of coal delivered from the mining area to the coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP). This is essentially the raw mining material prior to processing and, in addition to coal, may include other rock types, minerals or contaminants.

^bProduct coal refers to the tonnage of coal produced following processing at a coal handling and preparation plant. Coal processing may involve crushing, screening and washing to separate any non-coal materials that may have been present in the ROM coal stockpile (prior to processing).

^cPre-feasibility study is underway for Hyde Park, so the estimated production rates and mine life is less certain than for the other six coal mines in the modelled coal resource development pathway.

2.3.4.1.2.2 Qualitative assessment of hydrological changes of the coal resource development pathway

Of the 14 proposed coal mines in the CRDP, 7 are currently much less advanced in their development mine planning and assessment studies under the relevant regulatory approvals processes. These seven coal mines are: Alpha West, Blackall, Clyde Park, Hughenden, Milray, Pentland and West Pentland. They have all been included in the CRDP, consistent with the methods outlined in companion submethodology M04 (as listed in Table 1) for developing the coal resource development pathway (Lewis, 2014), and aided by additional information provided at or immediately after the Galilee external CRDP workshop held in October 2014. However, as there is scant information publicly available about the nature and time frame of future development plans at these proposed mining sites, it is not possible to include these seven mines specifically in the hydrological modelling for the BA. Thus, the assessment of the impacts of these CRDP mines will be limited to qualitative assessment in companion product 3-4 (impact and risk analysis) for the Galilee subregion.

The three CSG projects in the Galilee subregion all have current estimates for contingent gas resources (2C and 3C resources defined, based on the guideline from the Society of Petroleum Engineers Petroleum Resources Management System, SPE, 2011). There are no proved, probable or possible CSG reserves defined in the Galilee Basin, and the most advanced CSG projects at Glenaras and Gunn are at the stage of initial pilot well testing and appraisal. There are currently no publicly available plans to progress any CSG projects to full-scale commercial operation in the Galilee subregion. Consequently, although the Assessment team has included the three CSG projects in the CRDP, the projects are not sufficiently mature to be able to provide the type of data required for inclusion in hydrological modelling. Instead, assessment of CSG development impacts in this iteration of the BA will be restricted to qualitative assessment and commentary.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that not all of the projects listed in the catalogue of potential coal resource developments (see Figure 12 and Table 12 in Section 1.2.4 of companion product 1.2 for the Galilee subregion (Lewis et al., 2014)) have been included in the CRDP. This mainly reflects that for some coal resources in the Galilee subregion, mine development planning may not yet have been undertaken, and there remains a high level of uncertainty around the likelihood, scope and nature of any future operations. This may be due to various reasons, such as the coal resource having only been recently discovered and thus requiring significant further appraisal of the magnitude, quality and suitability for mining. In other cases, there may be compelling economic or company-specific evidence that has been used by the Assessment team to help determine that the project should not be included in the CRDP.

In these cases, the Assessment team has considered that, on the basis of available information, it is not likely that future commercial production from these coal resources will occur within the next 10 to 15 years. Of course, this does not imply that these resources will not be mined at some later stage in the future, particularly if further assessment studies are undertaken to better understand the geology of the deposit and the economic feasibility of extraction. A summary of salient information used by the Assessment team to develop and justify the CRDP for the Galilee subregion is provided in Table 12. This table provides information that may have been used to exclude some proposed projects from the CRDP, as well as information relevant to decisions to include the project in future hydrological modelling for the BA.

Table 12 Rationale for including or not including projects in the coal resource development pathway (CRDP) for the Galilee subregion

Coal resource project	Company	Included in CRDP?	Rationale for including or not including in CRDP
Alpha Coal Project	GVK Hancock Coal	Yes – modelled	Alpha Coal Project has passed EIS and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act approvals, and has also been granted the required Environmental Authority to proceed. A mining lease remains to be granted. As one of the front-running coal mine projects in the Galilee Basin, Alpha has also been subject to several legal challenges. Sufficient information is considered available about the proposed Alpha Coal Mine development to enable inclusion in the Galilee CRDP and hydrological modelling. For example, required mine development plans and scheduling data for Alpha are available to the Assessment team from information and datasets publicly released as part of the Alpha EIS and SEIS documentation.
Alpha North Coal Project	Waratah Coal Pty Ltd	No	An inferred coal resource is currently defined for Alpha North, but there is no economically demonstrated resource (EDR) yet available. This probably reflects that the main focus currently (and into the foreseeable future) for Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah Coal) is their front-running China First Coal Project. There is a mining lease application and a mineral development licence for Alpha North; however, given the current focus of the company and the non-approval of their proposed rail line to the main export port, it is considered unlikely that Alpha North will be developed within at least a 10–15 year time frame. Request for additional data and information from Waratah Coal on the nature and scale of expected future mining development at Alpha North has not met with success. The only relevant data that the Assessment team has been available to obtain is a final mine design concept plan, although the Assessment team has not been able to verify this as current or accurate with Waratah Coal. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence available to the Assessment team on the likely mine development time frame, scale, type and sequencing for Alpha North for it to be realistically included in the current hydrological modelling for the Galilee subregion. Due to its greenfield development status and uncertain future, Alpha North will not be included in the Galilee CRDP.
Alpha West Coal Project	GVK Hancock Coal	Yes – commentary	There is good understanding of the coal resources at Alpha West, and its development is considered likely to proceed at some future stage. This reflects that it is covered by a mining lease application and has had initial concept mine plans developed. Importantly, it will essentially target the down-dip coals west of the Alpha open-cut mine, and will most likely be developed as a future underground mining stage associated with the larger Alpha open-cut mine complex. Consequently, the Alpha West Coal Project is included in the Galilee CRDP. Feedback provided to the Assessment team by the project owner suggests that development plans for Alpha West are not sufficiently progressed to provide the type of required information needed as input for groundwater modelling. This includes no clear indication as yet about the timing or progression of expected development, or any detail on the mine development plans. Consequently, although Alpha West is included in the Galilee CRDP, there is insufficient data currently available for it to be considered for modelling in the Assessment.
Blackall Coal Project	East Energy Resources Limited	Yes – commentary	Blackall has an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) for coal and is the most advanced of the known sub-bituminous coal deposits in the Eromanga Basin strata that occur in the Galilee subregion. Information provided by East Energy Resources Limited (EER) to the Assessment team indicates that the Blackall deposit is largely a greenfield development site. Although there is some basic information available on the nature of the coal resources and the likely mining method (open-cut), the development company (EER) still requires a significant amount of further work to understand the type of detailed mine planning, temporal sequencing and water management information that is needed for the hydrological modelling to be undertaken. Consequently, the Blackall deposit is in the Galilee CRDP, but is not able to be included in the current phase of numerical modelling work for this iteration for the Galilee subregion.
Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project	Adani Mining Pty Ltd	Yes – modelled	Carmichael has passed EIS and EPBC Act approvals^a, and has more recently also been granted its requisite mining lease and Queensland Government Environmental Authority (EA). Thus, all of the required environmental and mining-related authorisations have now been secured for Carmichael to proceed to mine construction phase. Sufficient data and information is known to exist about proposed mining plans for Carmichael to allow for its inclusion in Galilee CRDP and the BA modelling process. In particular, the required mine development plans and scheduling data for Carmichael mine is available to the Assessment team from information and datasets publicly released as part of the Carmichael EIS and SEIS documentation.
Carmichael East Coal Project	Waratah Coal Pty Ltd	No	No coal resource is yet defined in accordance with the JORC Code for the Carmichael East coal deposit – only an exploration target figure is publicly available. Consequently, due to lack of current geological understanding about the deposit and its economic and geological suitability for mining operations to occur, Carmichael East is not included in the Galilee CRDP.
China First Coal Project	Waratah Coal Pty Ltd	Yes – modelled	The China First Coal Project has passed EIS and EPBC Act approvals, and (from an approvals viewpoint) now needs a mining lease to be granted and final Queensland Government Environmental Authority (EA) until construction can commence. Sufficient data and information is known to exist about proposed mining development to allow for inclusion of China First in the Galilee CRDP, as well as for it to be included in the BA hydrological modelling. Most of the required mine development plans and scheduling data for China First mine is available to the Assessment team from information and datasets publicly released as part of the China First EIS and SEIS documentation.
China Stone Coal Project	Macmines Austasia Pty Ltd	Yes – modelled	China Stone Coal Project has recently submitted an EIS to the Queensland Coordinator-General, and this is currently being assessed prior to determination being made. There is a good understanding of the coal resources at China Stone (i.e. an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) is well defined) and advanced plans for mining and processing operations were included as part of the EIS documentation. Consequently, China Stone is included in the Galilee CRDP, and there is also sufficient data available as part of the current EIS documentation for it to be part of the Galilee hydrological modelling process. Discussions with Macmines Austasia following the external Galilee CRDP workshop in Brisbane have indicated that they agree to allow the Assessment team to use any of the publicly available information provided in the China Stone EIS as part of the modelling for the Galilee subregion.
Clyde Park Coal Project	TerraCom Limited (formerly Guildford Coal Limited)	Yes – commentary	The Clyde Park Coal Project is included in the Galilee CRDP as it has an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) and is part of a larger tenement and coal resource position held by TerraCom Ltd in the northern Galilee Basin. This broader portfolio of assets suggests likely future development at some stage. However, there is insufficient information available about the nature of any future development at the Clyde Park coal resource, and the type, timing, schedule, and life span of possible development is currently uncertain. Thus, while it is appropriate to include Clyde Park in the Galilee CRDP, it will not be possible to quantitatively assess its impacts via hydrological modelling in this iteration for the Galilee subregion.
Degulla Coal Project	Vale Coal Exploration Pty Ltd	No	There is scant information available about the current plans for development of the Degulla coal deposits. Some media reports have indicated that the owners (Vale) are actively trying to sell the Degulla resource, rather than develop it. No current mineral development licences (MDL) or mining lease applications exist, and there is only an exploration permit covering the resource. Also, as there is no known economically demonstrated resource (EDR) figure publicly available for Degulla, the Assessment team considers that the future development of Degulla is very uncertain, and thus it is not included in the Galilee CRDP.
EPP 813 – CSG project	Blue Energy Limited	Yes – commentary	Blue Energy’s Galilee Basin CSG exploration project in EPP 813 has a defined contingent CSG resource of 838 PJ (3C). Given this resource and its prospective tenement position, about midway between the more advanced pilot projects at Glenaras and Gunn, it is considered likely that future gasfield development may occur in EPP 813 if operations at Gunn/Glenaras go ahead, and the required infrastructure is built to facilitate CSG delivery and operations. Thus, it is recommended to include EPP 813 in the Galilee CRDP, although it will not be assessed as part of the BA hydrological modelling due to the lack of maturity around the likely scale, location and magnitude of production operations.
Galilee Gas Project (Glenaras site)	Galilee Energy Limited	Yes – commentary	The Glenaras CSG pilot site has had successful pilot production testing done and has defined 2C and 3C contingent gas resources. This suggests that future development of the field is likely, although this may be a decade or more away, and the magnitude and location of any commercial CSG production operations here are currently unknown. However, despite these limitations, it is recommended to include Glenaras in the Galilee CRDP. Discussions with previous joint venture operators AGL Energy following the external Galilee CRDP workshop clearly indicated that there are no firm data or information currently available to indicate if/when/how commercial CSG production will occur at the Glenaras Project area. Following AGL’s pull-out from the Galilee joint venture in August 2015, Galilee Energy Limited have now taken 100% interest in the Galilee Gas Project. Due to the uncertainty that exists about the nature, timing and scale of any commercial CSG production at Glenaras, the Assessment team is unable to include Glenaras in the current round of Galilee hydrological modelling. Thus, although Glenaras can be retained in the Galilee CRDP, there are insufficient data for it to be part of the modelled developments.
Gunn Project	Comet Ridge Limited	Yes – commentary	The Gunn CSG site has had pilot production testing done and has defined 2C and 3C gas contingent resources. This suggests that future development of the CSG resources is likely, although this may be a decade or more away, and the magnitude and location of any commercial CSG production operations here is currently unknown. Discussions with Comet Ridge following the external Galilee CRDP workshop have clearly indicated that there are insufficient data or information currently available to indicate if/when/how commercial CSG production will occur at Gunn Project area. Comet Ridge has undertaken pilot production testing operations for CSG at Gunn, although there are no clear investment decisions to proceed to commercialisation. Given the greenfield nature of current operations, and the uncertainty that exists about the nature, timing and scale of any CSG production at Gunn, the Assessment team is unable to include Gunn in the current round of Galilee hydrological modelling. Although Gunn is included in the Galilee CRDP, there are insufficient data for it to be modelled, and assessment will be limited to qualitative analysis for this BA.
Hughenden Project	TerraCom Limited (formerly Guildford Coal Limited)	Yes – commentary	The Hughenden Coal Project is included in Galilee CRDP as it has an economically demonstrated coal resource (EDR) associated with it and is part of the larger tenement position held by TerraCom Ltd in the northern Galilee Basin. This evidence suggests that future underground mining development of the Hughenden deposit is likely. However, there is currently insufficient specific information available about the nature of the development at Hughenden, including the details of mine timing, schedule and life span, for it to be included in the Galilee hydrological modelling component of this BA.
Hyde Park Coal Project	Resolve Coal Pty Ltd	Yes – modelled	Hyde Park is included in the Galilee CRDP as it has an economically demonstrated coal resource (EDR) defined, and there is considerable evidence available publicly about the expected manner in which the resource development project is likely to occur. At this stage, there has been no application for an EIS, or for a mining lease or mineral development licence, although Hyde Park was granted ‘project status’ by the Queensland Government in April 2016. Discussions with Resolve Coal have proven encouraging since the external Galilee CRDP workshop, and Resolve Coal have agreed to provide to the Assessment team the required data and information on the proposed Hyde Park Coal Project development for it to be included in the hydrological modelling for the Galilee subregion.
Inverness	Coalbank Limited	No	The Inverness coal deposit only has an inferred 1300 Mt coal resource recently defined, i.e. there is no economically demonstrated resource (EDR) at present. There are also no mining leases or mineral development licence applications as yet, only the original coal exploration permit covers the deposit. Consequently, it is uncertain if future development at Inverness will proceed, and the deposit needs considerable further work to improve geological understanding and determine potential for economic development. Thus, it is not included in the Galilee CRDP.
Kevin’s Corner Coal Project	GVK Hancock Coal	Yes – modelled	The Kevin's Corner Coal Project has passed EIS and EPBC Act approvals, and now only needs a mining lease to be granted and Queensland Government Environmental Authority (EA) to proceed. Sufficient information is considered to be available about the proposed mine development to enable inclusion in modelling. For example, the required mine development plans, scheduling data and water management plans for Kevin's Corner Mine are available to the Assessment team from information and datasets publicly released as part of the Kevin's Corner EIS and SEIS documentation. The resource owners (GVK Hancock) have formally agreed to permit the Assessment team to use such data in the hydrological modelling for the Galilee subregion.
Milray	Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd	Yes – commentary	The Milray deposit has an inferred coal resource, i.e. no economically demonstrated resource (EDR) is known to be publicly defined at present. There are also no mining lease or mineral development licence applications for Milray, only the original coal exploration tenement. The deposit probably needs considerable further work to improve geological understanding and determine potential for economic development, although there is very little relevant information publicly available to test this idea at present. Following the external Galilee CRDP workshop, Glencore Coal Queensland has provided additional information relevant to the CRDP decision for Milray. Glencore Coal Queensland owns both the Milray and nearby Pentland deposits, in the northern Galilee Basin. Development of these two deposits is viewed by Glencore Coal Queensland as likely to proceed at a similar time, and both are considered viable resources for future extraction, especially to fulfil supply contracts if Glencore Coal Queensland’s Bowen Basin coal operations begin to exhaust supplies in future. For these reasons Milray is included in the Galilee CRDP; although there is insufficient information to numerically model it for the Galilee subregion.
Pentland Coal Project	Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd	Yes – commentary	The Pentland coal deposit has a well-defined economically demonstrated resource (EDR) for coal and has been known about for several decades. Pentland is a relatively small (at least for Galilee standards) coal resource in northern part of the Galilee subregion. As mentioned above, the Pentland deposit occurs near Milray, and both coal resources are currently owned by Glencore Coal Queensland. Thus, Pentland is included in the Galilee CRDP as a likely joint future development target along with Milray. However, there are currently insufficient data or information to assess development options with any certainty, so it is not included in the hydrological modelling for the Galilee subregion.
South Galilee Coal Project	Alpha Coal Management Pty Ltd, on behalf of AMCI and Alpha Coal Pty Ltd	Yes – modelled	South Galilee has an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) and the project has received EIS approval from the Queensland Coordinator-General, as well as Australian Government approvals under the EPBC Act. The project requires granting of the mining lease and Queensland Environmental Authority prior to mining commencing. However, the Assessment team considers that mining is considered likely to proceed in the proposed mining lease area, and consequently South Galilee is included in the Galilee CRDP. There is sufficient data and information available about the proposed mine operations at South Galilee from the EIS and AEIS documentation to allow it to be modelled. The Assessment team has also received formal agreement from AMCI to use such data for the Galilee subregion.
South Pentland Project	Cockatoo Coal Limited	No	South Pentland only has an inferred resource recently defined (i.e. no economically demonstrated resource (EDR) at present). The deposit is not covered by applications for a mining lease or mineral development licence at present, only the original coal exploration permit exists. The coal resource at South Pentland likely requires considerable work to improve geological understanding and determine potential for economic development. Thus, it is not at a current state of knowledge to include in the CRDP for the Galilee subregion.
West Pentland Coal Project	United Queensland Resources Pty Limited (previously owned by New Emerald Coal Ltd)	Yes – commentary	The West Pentland coal deposit has an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) associated with it, and has had some preliminary assessment of possible mining concept plans, and, on this basis, it is included in the Galilee CRDP. However, there is insufficient feasibility and planning work reported publicly thus far to provide the required information and data to feed into the modelling process for the Galilee subregion. Consequently, West Pentland is in the Galilee CRDP, but is not able to be modelled. United Queensland Resources Pty Ltd gained ownership of New Emerald Coal Ltd in May 2015 and now owns the West Pentland coal deposit.
Yellow Jacket Project	Cuesta Coal Limited	No	The Yellow Jacket coal deposit is a relatively recent exploration discovery, and the coal resource is not yet an economically demonstrated resource (EDR) (only an inferred resource known at present). There are also no mining lease or mineral development licence applications that yet apply for Yellow Jacket. Thus, the Yellow Jacket deposit requires considerable further work to improve geological understanding and determine potential for economic development. It is not in the CRDP for the Galilee subregion.

^aOn 5 August 2015 the Federal Court overturned the Australian Government’s approval of the Carmichael Coal Mine, requiring it to be reassessed. The mine is included in the CRDP as it is based on information available as of December 2014. On 14 October 2015 Carmichael Coal Mine was re-approved by the Federal Environment Minister with 36 conditions.

AEIS = additional environmental impact statement, BA = bioregional assessment, EDR = economic demonstrated resource, EIS = environmental impact statement, EPBC Act = Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, EPP = exploration permit for petroleum, MDL = mineral development licence, ML = mining lease, SEIS = supplementary environmental impact statement

Figure 28 Estimated scheduling of proposed coal mine developments to be quantitatively assessed in the bioregional assessment for the Galilee subregion

Dates as shown on Figure 26 represent best available estimates as at December 2014. Actual operational start and end dates and production time frames may change due to various factors.

Last updated:

17 December 2018

2.3.4.1 Developing the coal resource development pathway

2.3.4.1.1 Introduction

2.3.4.1.2 Coal resource development pathway for the Galilee subregion

2.3.4.1.2.1 Quantitative assessment of hydrological changes of the coal resource development pathway

2.3.4.1.2.2 Qualitative assessment of hydrological changes of the coal resource development pathway

Product Finalisation date

Numbered headings

ASSESSMENT

PRODUCT DATA