QLD Mining and Energy Bulletin
Issue link: http://ebook.aprs.com.au/i/31843
INDUSTRY In this issue we speak with Michael Roche, Chief Executive of the Queensland Resources Council (QRC). Michael Roche is the Chief Executive of the Queensland Resources Council (QRC), the peak industry body for the minerals and energy sector in Queensland, representing the interests of almost 170 member companies. Before joining the QRC in 2005, Michael spent nearly nine years in senior management roles with the Australian Stock Exchange in Sydney, including more than three years as the Executive General Manager of ASX’s markets and market data businesses. Michael also has extensive experience in the government sector, including nine years in Canberra, with most of that time as a senior executive in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. From 1990, Michael served for almost fi ve years as Chief of Staff to the Queensland Treasurer and two years as Deputy Director-General in the Queensland Cabinet Offi ce, part of the Premier’s portfolio. Michael currently serves on several boards and advisory committees, including as chair of the Queensland Minerals and Energy Academy board, and board member of the Mining Industry Skills Centre and the Australian Coal Association. Michael is a member of the Premier’s Employment Taskforce, the Queensland Transport and Logistics Council and he was appointed in 2009 as a Queensland Resource Industry Ambassador. 6 QLD Mining and Energy Bulletin Winter 2011 What is the current state of the fl ood- affected mines and when do you expect a return to full production? Three out of every four of the state’s coal mines have been granted or are seeking approval for Transitional Environmental Programs to allow the closely monitored pumping out of water collected during this wet season including the New Year fl oods. A timetable for a return to full production remains highly speculative while the wet season could easily extend well into April. It is also clear from our members that a large number of mines will be carrying left-over fl oodwater into the dry season. Monthly production and export volumes published to date are confi rming the QRC’s initial projection of around 30 million tonnes of lost production by the end of the fi nancial year, worth around $5 billion and $400 million in royalties to Queensland taxpayers. Can you anticipate any long-term environmental damage caused by issues such as mine waste flowing into river systems? All mines operate under various water- discharge conditions by the environment authorities, and can seek special approvals outside of those environmental authorities, in certain situations. The environment regulators have said, to satisfy themselves, that there is not a net environmental harm from granting those approvals. We do have a number of mines who are higher up in the catchment, whose local creeks have returned to a low fl ow, and which have a lot of water to get rid of. The conundrum for the regulator is whether to approve water being discharged into those low-fl ow creeks, where those creeks of course then fi nd their way to their way to major watercourses which are still carrying large quantities of water. So, for the major watercourses, the volumes of water that the mining industry needs to discharge compared to what the watercourses are carrying is quite tiny; I use the analogy of putting a thimble full of water into a swimming pool. Clearly the industry does not want any repeat of some of the reputational damage that arose in the wake of the 2008 fl ooding events. The rules under which mines operate under are stricter, but the water quantities are so massive at the moment that I think that water- quality impacts from mines are the least of the concerns for communities, where chemically- treated crops have been fl ooded, sewerage systems have been impacted, a range of dead animals are fl oating in watercourses. So I think the overall water quality issues in particularly Central Queensland, the mining is the least of peoples worries. Has the response from the state and federal governments been adequate, and who should bear the brunt of costs of restoring damaged infrastructure, such as rail-links? When it comes to rail, the first thing to say is that QR National has done a very good job. It had to deal with a major derailment which took the Goonyella line out for a week and there was associated flooding damage as well; but that was back in operation, with some restrictions, after just a week. There were more severe impacts on the lines that eventually feed through to the Port of Gladstone and the main line was out for four weeks; there was extraordinary level of floodwaters from the Dawson River basically sitting over the top of that line. The good news is, because of the ways that these lines are built, a lot of extra engineering that goes into them, there was not significant damage left behind on the main line, but there were some bridges needing to be repaired and a couple of spur-lines which could be out for extended periods that will impact more severely on one or two companies. The more lasting concern is in relation to the mines west of Toowoomba who use the western line, eventually exporting their coal out through the Port of Brisbane – and the talk is of outages of key bridges for anything from between eight to 12 weeks – that would be a severe impact and we’re in fact talking to the Department of Transport and Main Roads about what would be involved in getting some trucking of coal around the rail outage. They’re some of the measures that may have to be taken to deal with these sorts of events. Clearly we’d like the Western Line to be at the lower end of that spectrum of eight to 12 weeks, but ultimately the industry pays for that work through the way the rail system is regulated and these costs eventually come back to industry. So, we don’t have our hand out when it comes to rail. When it comes to roads, of course those are important supply lines for people and goods and services, and are of course multi-user INTERVIEW