- Home
- Assessments
- Bioregional Assessment Program
- Methods
- Developing a coal resource development pathway
- 4 Stage two of the coal resource development pathway – assessment
4.1 Introduction
The assessment of the coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion is produced through the critical evaluation of data inputs collated and described previously (Section 3). Decisions about which of the projects are considered likely to be developed in the future are made through scientific analysis of the available data and information, combined with the technical knowledge and judgment of the Assessment teams. This detailed analysis is primarily needed to focus the subsequent surface water and groundwater numerical modelling to be done in the bioregional assessments (see Section 4.10). The coal resource development pathway thus represents the culmination of independent evaluation by each Assessment team, and is tested and verified through discussions with relevant coal and CSG companies and other experts in industry, government and local communities (see Section 4.8).
The coal resource development pathway is based on a thorough understanding of the current status of resource operations (i.e. the development baseline), coupled with a realistic projection of how future resource development is most likely to unfold across the bioregion or subregion. This may include both new resource extraction proposals, as well as expansion plans for existing operations. To the extent possible, the coal resource development pathway will cover all potential development stages including exploration, production, closure and mine legacy issues (Barrett et al., 2013).
Stage two of the submethodology presented here has been developed primarily as a practical guide for Assessment teams and provides the flexibility to research and determine the coal resource development pathway in areas with diverse coal resource characteristics and development situations. These potential developments range from areas in remote greenfield coal-bearing basins such as Arckaringa and Pedirka, through to areas with a long history of coal mining and significant investment in associated infrastructure, for example, the Hunter subregion in the Northern Sydney Basin bioregion. The results of the detailed analytical work to determine each coal resource development pathway are written as a concise statement, and reported in companion product 2.3 (about conceptual modelling) for each assessment. Specific guidance on the reporting requirements is in Section 4.9.
4.2 Scope of the coal resource development pathway
The coal resource development pathway must be specified for each bioregion or subregion to describe the most likely combination of known coal and CSG resources (deposits) that are expected to progress to become commercially operating mines or gas production sites (Barrett et al., 2013). This timeline of proposed developments extends the baseline of current commercial resource operations (as noted for each bioregion or subregion as of the last quarter of 2012) into the foreseeable future. The timespan that the coal resource development pathway covers will likely differ between bioregions and subregions due to variability in the nature, extent and timing of existing and proposed developments (and the amount of information available to base the assessment on). However, an indicative coal resource development pathway focused on those projects expected to start commercial production within approximately 15 years (from time of assessment) is here suggested as the likely development time frame that most Assessment teams will plausibly be able to evaluate. This reflects the long lead-in times required to progress from exploration success through various stages of appraisal, concept planning and approvals before commercial operations commence. This period is also in line with the time frame of expected development for identified resources described in the Australian resource classification scheme (Geoscience Australia and BREE, 2013).
The coal resource development pathway is focused at the bioregion or subregion scale and provides the regional understanding of where and when future development activities will be focused (including areally, stratigraphically and their depth extents), the total number and type of developments, and the variation in production rates for coal and CSG over the coal resource development pathway timespan. It is also useful to briefly outline the coal and CSG handling, processing and transportation infrastructure of each assessment region, particularly if significant new investment in such infrastructure is required as part of future development.
Further to the regional overview and synthesis of coal and CSG resources (companion product 1.2), the coal resource development pathway describes the:
- current baseline of coal resource development
- name and type of each resource development
- timing of main development stages and expected life-of-operations
- potential for subsequent modification of original development plans, for example, the possibility of further expansion of open-cut mines beyond the initial proposal, or cases where open-cut mines may proceed to underground operations
- names of relevant companies (or joint ventures) owning and/or operating resource developments
- size of the mineable resource and expected annual production rates at the bioregion or subregion scale.
It is useful to graphically display these development stages on a timeline diagram, and also their areal distribution on a map of the subregion.
By defining the suite of potential resource developments that are considered most likely to proceed into the future, subsequent numerical modelling work will be able to effectively focus on changes to surface water and groundwater systems caused by the combined (cumulative) effects of these developments. This numerical modelling will occur in BA Component 2 (model-data analysis) following definition of the coal resource development pathway and other required conceptual modelling inputs (companion product 2.3). An overview of the application of the coal resource development pathway in these subsequent modelling stages is presented in Section 4.10, which will help Assessment teams to recognise the minimum information requirements to describe in their coal resource development pathways. Details of the modelling approaches are covered in pending companion submethodologies listed in Table 1 (e.g. M06 about the BA surface water modelling approach and M07 about the BA groundwater modelling approach).
A further important point here is that bioregional assessments will only specify one most likely coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion. Thus, multiple coal resource development pathways (or potentially a set of different development pathways or scenarios) are not described in BAs. This decision provides the certainty and consistency of a standard BA-wide approach to determining the development pathway for each bioregion or subregion. The single coal resource development pathway also avoids future subjective debate and ambiguity over the relative likelihood of prospective, but different, development pathways occurring (from a potentially long list of possibilities). It also helps to ensure that the impacts and risks to water-dependent assets are conditional on a specific coal resource development pathway. Due to the BA requirement to propagate model uncertainties throughout all stages, a single coal resource development pathway also means that the relative uncertainty levels that would need to be associated with different development pathways do not have the effect of overwhelming the later numerical model uncertainty estimates that are subsequently developed in the BAs.
4.3 Specifying the development baseline
The baseline for each bioregion or subregion is defined by the collective suite of large coal mining and CSG extraction operations that were engaged in commercial production as of the last quarter of 2012 (as explained in Section 3.5). This means that any resource projects that were not extracting coal or CSG for sale to a buying market by 31 December 2012 will not be included as a baseline operation, but will instead be considered as a future development in the coal resource development pathway. Historical mining operations should also be mentioned here, although their potential water-related impacts will likely diminish with the overall length of time that the mine has been non-operational. Knowledge of these current and historical resources is based on the outcomes of the data and information synthesis outlined in Section 3, which is reported in companion product 1.2 for each bioregion or subregion. The baseline describes the situation prior to the future resource development of the coal resource development pathway, and as a minimum should include:
- name, location and type of large coal mining or CSG operations
- main companies involved in these operations
- for CSG production sites, specify the number of operational wells and their areal distribution
- the length of time that the operations have been engaged in commercial production, as well as information about the timing of any major development stages and expected life of future operations, extraction volumes and area of production
- total amount of resources extracted annually from the basin (aggregated from all mines and production sites) – this could usefully be displayed as a graph showing coal production tonnage or CSG volume extracted over the last 5 to 10 years.
It is also helpful to show the areal distribution of baseline operations on a map of the bioregion or subregion. Further information about the inputs to baseline reporting is in Section 3.5.
4.4 Development time frames
An important concept for Assessment teams to be aware of is the potential for future variability of their respective coal resource development pathways. This may alter some aspects of the stated coal resource development pathway that were based on analysis of data available at the time of the assessment. As decisions to progress resource developments are subject to a wide range of geological, engineering, technological, legislative and economic considerations, the nature and timing of development plans proposed by individual (or joint venture of) companies may change over time, for example, within the space of several years (and sooner in cases). Companies may reassess and reprioritise their development plans as new data or information on the tonnage and grade of the resource becomes available, or in response to key market variables that can directly influence the economic viability of a project.
Due to this potential for change over time, each Assessment team should be mindful that the most likely coal resource development pathway that they describe may be applicable only for some limited amount of time from the point that the pathway is initially defined. This is based on their considered understanding of the available information, including direct input and validation from relevant groups in industry (such as resource development companies) or government, if possible. Consequently, the coal resource development pathway stated for each bioregion or subregion should clearly be ‘time-stamped’ when described in companion product 2.3. This pathway will then be valid for a certain time frame into the future, although it may prove difficult for individual Assessment teams to speculate about what this length of time will be for some bioregions or subregions. However, it is recommended to further assess and re-evaluate the originally stated time frame of the coal resource development pathway during the later stages of the BA, such as during Component 4 – Risk analysis. This process may help to identify the optimal time frames for repeating certain aspects of the BA, such as defining the coal resource development pathway.
As part of the time-stamp process it is also helpful for Assessment teams to be clear about which (if any) of the main assumptions underpinning their coal resource development pathway may alter within the foreseeable future, and what the expected impacts of such changes may be. If these impacts are deemed significant, then it may be possible to update the coal resource development pathway at a later stage of bioregional assessments (if needed) and then reassess predicted development impacts via further modelling based on the revised coal resource development pathway.
4.5 Regional focus
Potential development pathways for coal and CSG resources are determined by the interplay of a range of important factors. These include geological parameters such as coal characteristics (type, rank, grade), abundance, location and depth, environmental and land access considerations (e.g. areas where mining cannot take place due to existing legislation such as national parks or other types of legislated exclusion zones), technological constraints associated with mining and production, and various economic factors (primarily a viable long-term market contract for sale of the resource). Critically, the combination of these factors at the bioregion or subregion scale will present a unique narrative of the coal resource development pathway.
As a consequence of this, the description of the coal resource development pathway needs to present the regional scale development outlook and not be restricted or overly focused at the level of individual mines or resources projects. In this way, the wider cumulative effects of development can be considered in later modelling stages with individual components integrated into a whole-of-basin understanding (this is also important for understanding cumulative impacts, see pending submethodology M10 for identifying and analysing risk as listed in Table 1). Ideally, each Assessment team will include a regional scale map in companion product 2.3 showing the location of all components of the expected development pathway (i.e. individual mines and CSG production sites) that includes the:
- current development status (see Table 5)
- projected time frame for each proposed development to become operational
- type of extractive method to be used
- expected annual production rate.
However, as such spatial outputs depend on the availability of detailed information relating to delineated resources, this may not be possible for some regions. A note will be made where such information is not available for inclusion, as well as the nature of any assumptions made by Assessment teams in the absence of data.
4.6 Out of scope
There are several resource-related factors that are out of scope for the coal resource development pathway:
- Multiple coal resource development pathways will not be described or modelled for BAs. Instead, there will be a single indicative coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion consisting of the combination of individual resource projects considered most likely to proceed through future stages of development into commercial mining and CSG operations.
- Any resource projects or development stages which cannot be independently confirmed by available information in the public domain (or information which may be placed in the public domain to support the coal resource development pathway analysis, within the time frame of the BAs) will not be included. Preferably multiple sources of corroborating evidence (e.g. company or government reports, ASX announcements, public presentations) will be used to validate each resource development. Unconfirmed hearsay or speculation about resources or potential development situations will not be considered, so as to maintain the transparency of the Programme and the credibility of the Assessment teams undertaking the work.
- The coal resource development pathway will not include or speculate on the location, tonnage or potential for extraction of undiscovered or unidentified resources within a bioregion. Independent estimates of total undiscovered coal and CSG resources are not consistently available for most onshore Australian sedimentary basins, and hence cannot be widely used for the purpose of BAs. Additionally, including potential undiscovered resources in future modelling stages will introduce significantly high levels of uncertainty into the overall BA workflow, which could potentially overwhelm the uncertainty estimates of subsequent modelling predictions.
- Any coal or CSG occurrences that do not meet the national classification scheme definition of a ‘resource’ should not be included for consideration in the coal resource development pathway, such as those that are classed only as occurrences or undiscovered (prospective) resources (Appendix A).
- Resources based on extraction via underground coal gasification (UCG) technology, as well as all other unconventional and conventional petroleum gas resources (e.g. shale gas and tight gas resources), will not be considered in the coal resource development pathway, as they are out of scope for the BAs.
4.7 Assessment of the coal resource development pathway
4.7.1 Stages
Determining the combination of potential coal resource projects that define the coal resource development pathway is a two-stage assessment process that takes place across components 1 and 2 of the BAs.
4.7.1.1 Contextual information
In Component 1, the catalogue of potential resource developments compiled for each bioregion or subregion is the starting point for the more detailed coal resource development pathway analysis undertaken by Assessment teams. This catalogue, which is reported in Section 1.2.4 of companion product 1.2, provides the list of all identified coal and CSG resources (Appendix A) which could potentially be developed into full-scale commercial production at some stage in the future.
An example of both the coal and CSG catalogues is shown in Tables 7 and 8[4]. Information for the notes column of these tables may include details of the mining lease and exploration tenements associated with each project, as well as the proposed operational footprint (areal extent) of each site.
As discussed in Section 3, the analysis completed during this stage is required to understand the geology and three-dimensional spatial distribution of coal and CSG, and to identify the main companies involved in exploring and producing these resources. However, it is not expected that all of the resources identified in the catalogue will necessarily be included in the coal resource development pathway. For example, some deposits for which only an inferred resource (as reported in accordance with the JORC Code) is currently available may not be sufficiently enough well understood (in terms of geology and economics) to be included in the coal resource development pathway.
Table 7 Example of catalogue of potential coal resource developments
Project name |
Company |
Longitude |
Latitude |
Record datea |
Materialb |
Total coal resourcesc(Mt) |
Status of EISd
|
Notes |
Project 1 |
Company 1 |
119° |
–22° |
2 Apr 2013 |
Thermal coal |
17,880 |
EIS closed |
Jones et al. (2011) |
Project 2 (PRJ2) |
Company 2 |
148° |
–32° |
1 Sep 2012 |
Unspecified |
453 |
EIS approved |
Stage 2 has been fast-tracked |
Project 3 |
Company 3 |
150° |
–34° |
26 May 2014 |
PCI |
10 |
Pre-EIS |
Tonnage uncertain |
Company 3 |
139° |
–28° |
9 Dec 2013 |
Coking coal |
708 |
EIS submitted |
AGL (2014) |
|
Project 5 |
Company 4 |
128° |
–20° |
24 Aug 2013 |
PCI |
Supplementary EIS |
Underground mine |
aThe record date is the most recent date for updated coal resource numbers.
bMaterials fall into one of the following four classes: thermal coal, coking coal, pulverised coal injection (PCI) and unspecified.
cThis is calculated by summing the resources with Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) codes of measured, indicated and inferred.
dThe status of the project within an environmental impact statement (EIS): pre-EIS, EIS in preparation, EIS submitted, EIS closed, supplementary EIS and EIS approved.
Table 8 Example of catalogue of potential coal seam gas resource developments
Project name |
Company |
Longitude |
Latitude |
Record datea |
2P coal seam gas reservesb(PJ) |
Status of EISc
|
Notes |
Project 1 |
Company 1 |
119° |
–22° |
2 Apr 2013 |
1880 |
EIS closed |
Jones et al. (2011) |
Project 2 (PRJ2) |
Company 2 |
148° |
–32° |
1 Sep 2012 |
453 |
EIS approved |
Stage 2 has been fast-tracked |
Project 3 |
Company 3 |
150° |
–34° |
26 May 2014 |
10 |
Pre-EIS |
Smith (2013) |
Project 4 |
Company 3 |
139° |
–28° |
9 Dec 2013 |
708 |
AGL (2014) |
|
Project 5 |
Company 4 |
128° |
–20° |
24 Aug 2013 |
8352 |
Supplementary EIS |
Underground mine |
aThe record date is the most recent date for updated coal seam gas resource numbers.
bThe Petroleum Resource Management System of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (PRMS-SPE) code 2P refers to estimated quantities of proved reserves plus probable reserves.
cThe status of the project within an environmental impact statement (EIS): pre-EIS, EIS in preparation, EIS submitted, EIS closed, supplementary EIS and EIS approved.
4.7.1.2 Model-data analysis
Analysis of relevant data and information by Assessment teams is undertaken for each listing in the catalogue of potential resource developments. The main assessment criteria used to evaluate each resource project and determine the coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion are presented in Section 4.7.2. If possible, the factors likely to influence the final investment decision for a project to advance to mine development will also be considered by Assessment teams as part of this analysis.
4.7.2 Assessment criteria
There are many factors (e.g. geological, economic, infrastructure access, legislative) that can provide incentives or constraints to resource development, and together these may influence the final investment decision to proceed (eventually) to commercial production. Consequently, this coal resource development pathway submethodology has been developed to capture the potential influence of this range of factors via a discretionary (case-by-case) assessment approach. The decision to include projects in the coal resource development pathway is thus based on the accumulated knowledge and region-specific understanding developed by the individual Assessment teams. As with other reporting for BAs, the rationale for determining which projects are included (and excluded) from the coal resource development pathway needs to be clearly articulated (in the case of the coal resource development pathway, this is done in companion product 2.3).
For the purpose of BAs, there are two important criteria for initially determining if a resource development project will be part of the coal resource development pathway:
- Projects that have been referred, or have already submitted documentation, for assessment of an EIS. As previously explained (Section 3.6), the EIS process is administered by various government departments and involves a multi-stage process of assessing a range of potential environmental (and other) impacts due to the proposed development. Due to the complexity, costs and consequences of submitting an EIS for assessment, reaching this stage usually signals an appropriate level of confidence from the resource developer in the economic viability of the operation. Projects which are expected to submit an EIS within the next two years are also to be included in the coal resource development pathway.
- Projects with an economically demonstrated resource (EDR, as defined in the Australian resource classification scheme – see Appendix A for details) are those considered to be the best understood in terms of their geology and the economic feasibility of future development. Thus, the default position for BAs is to include all coal and CSG projects with an EDR in the coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion (it would be expected that all resource development projects at EIS stage as noted above would also have an EDR associated with them).
In the context of BAs the above two criteria provide strong justification for inclusion in the coal resource development pathway. However, it is possible that Assessment teams may recognise some situations where such resource development projects (either at EIS stage or with an EDR) are not expected to proceed to full-scale development. For example, this may arise if the set of economic assumptions that currently underpin the viability of the resource development are significantly altered, to the extent that commercial extraction is no longer profitable. Alternatively, changes in government legislation or regulatory conditions may also affect the commercial viability of an otherwise economic resource (note that if these types of situations affected resources owned by a publicly listed company then they would also be required to provide public notification of such changes, e.g. through an announcement to the ASX). In these cases, the coal resource development pathway submethodology is sufficiently flexible to allow exclusion of such projects, although these decisions must be fully explained and justified in writing the coal resource development pathway description. Furthermore, the case for exclusion must be effectively argued by the Assessment team and supported by the BA Science Leadership Group and the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC). In this way, there is clear accountability and documentation of these important decisions across the Programme.
For those resource projects listed in the catalogue of potential developments which are not at EIS stage, or which do not have an EDR, multi-criteria assessment of relevant and available information covering geological, economic, environmental, legislative and technical issues may be required for Assessment teams to judge the likelihood of development proceeding within the coming (approximately) 15 years (thus providing a basis to decide on its inclusion or exclusion from the coal resource development pathway). This case-by-case assessment may focus on various factors such as:
- the nature and level of current activity taking place at the identified resource (usually by the resource owners, their affiliates or joint venture partners), particularly if this activity is at an advanced mine planning feasibility stage or involves preparation of material for future EIS submission. For example, initial concept plans or preliminary designs may be available to indicate the nature, style and timing of the resource development as well as the associated critical infrastructure demands and access option
- the likelihood of the current resource base being reclassified with greater certainty at some stage in the near- to medium-term, that is, within the assessment time frame for the Programme. This may alter the distribution of the project resource base (e.g. the ratio of resource categorised in accordance with the JORC Code classes of measured, indicated and inferred), thereby enhancing the probability of future development proceeding
- recognition of potential major impediments to development, such as factors associated with legislative, economic, infrastructure, environmental, social, or technological issues, and how these may affect the future and timing of the proposed development
- basic understanding of economic factors and market conditions that may affect the viability of a resource development to proceed, e.g. current and future market price estimates for coal. Although it is beyond the scope of BAs to undertake a detailed analysis of resource economics for each potential development, Assessment teams may consider the influence of major economic factors affecting the viability of particular resource projects in the coal resource development pathway. If such information can be obtained, this may involve brief analysis of capital funding provisions, joint venture arrangements, or the existence of locked‑in take-or-pay contracts
- understanding of the mine or petroleum reservoir engineering considerations that may affect the method of extracting the resource
- consideration of current understanding of the development company (or joint venture) intentions for the project – such as their current level of interest and at what stage are they in terms of capital raising or securing financial backing for the project. It is also useful to recognise the expected level of appetite that the company has to work towards upgrading and developing the resource and if there are any existing timelines associated with such planning
- if the proposed development of the project has already been recognised as being of particular interest to relevant regulatory authorities, or has attracted significant opposition from local groups, such as community representatives
- any relevant technical and scientific factors (e.g. geological or environmental conditions), or legislative information that may assist the Assessment team in determining the likely status and timing for future development of the resource.
Simple flow chart analysis and the use of basic (e.g. yes/no) evaluation criteria are generally not appropriate techniques for many of the datasets (as outlined above) that need to be considered for this stage of the coal resource development pathway assessment. This is because of the expected complexity of inter-data relationships and the variability in weighting of different factors between subregions and bioregions. If required, alternative multi-criteria data assessment methods, possibly using tools such as concept-maps, may be investigated by Assessment teams as an aid to capture and assess the range of factors for evaluation.
By considering as many of these relevant factors as possible, each Assessment team will need to decide if they can build and effectively argue the case for the overall coal resource development pathway proposed for respective bioregions and subregions. This approach provides for sufficient scrutiny of the suite of projects considered for inclusion at the time of assessment.
4.7.3 Potential difficulties
One of the main difficulties facing Assessment teams in deciding which projects to include in the coal resource development pathway is the lack of specific threshold values for the information that may need to be assessed for some projects. Thus, while it is possible to identify here the factors to be evaluated for each resource project, it is not always possible to provide clear guidance to Assessment teams on the quantitative values that can be used to determine if a particular project is considered likely to proceed or not. This will particularly be the case for projects which are currently not well defined geologically or economically (i.e. inferred or subeconomic resources), or which are not yet at EIS or mine feasibility planning stages. Where such examples occur, respective Assessment teams must exercise independent judgment based upon their overall evaluation of the most relevant information available (case-by-case) and with due regard to wider resource and infrastructure development trends within each bioregion or subregion.
If, in the opinion of the Assessment team, most factors assessed for each resource project are considered to favour that project becoming an operational production site, then it is likely to be included in the coal resource development pathway. To ensure transparency of decisions, for those projects listed in the catalogue of potential resource developments that are deemed unlikely to be developed, the factors that have led to its exclusion should be adequately described and explained as part of the reporting of the coal resource development pathway (companion product 2.3).
4.8 Engagement with experts
Engagement with relevant industry groups, individual resource development companies and acknowledged experts in government agencies, academic institutions and local communities is crucial to independently evaluate the proposed coal resource development pathway. This provides the opportunity to present the results of the initial research based on the key data themes (companion product 1.2) and test the preferred pathway concept with a range of experts that are well-placed to provide direct feedback on its validity. Initial engagement should preferably occur during the development of companion product 1.2, so that Assessment teams can start to formulate initial ideas about the development potential for each resource. This also provides opportunity to identify and test various development assumptions, as well as providing a mechanism to potentially access a wider range of data and information about resource projects. Ongoing communication with relevant experts as data analysis proceeds (in Component 2) for the coal resource development pathway is also recommended, as it is likely to provide useful input and clarification of uncertainties.
There are many potential benefits for Assessment teams in establishing productive working relationships with a network of experts for each bioregion and subregion. For example, relevant industry representatives from coal resource companies may be able to address uncertainties about the status of particular projects or help to confirm the proposed development pathway as being feasible and in line with current corporate expectations. This type of engagement needs to involve both coal mining and CSG development companies, as each may have unique characteristics relevant to assessing the coal resource development pathway. Ongoing dialogue with relevant resource companies and state government agencies, combined with well-targeted workshops, are also important components of the coal resource development pathway process and provide important mechanisms for productive engagement. Furthermore, it is part of the overall BA process for each Assessment team to engage and seek feedback from relevant experts and other interested groups (e.g. local communities) about each coal resource development pathway, and respond appropriately to this feedback prior to publication of the coal resource development pathway for each bioregion or subregion.
4.9 Bringing the concepts together and writing the coal resource development pathway in companion product 2.3
The description of the coal resource development pathway for any bioregion or subregion is best written as a concise and focused synthesis, which is reported in companion product 2.3 (about conceptual modelling). This will initially be based on the projects and deposits listed in the catalogue of potential resource developments from the coal and CSG resource assessment (companion product 1.2). However, to decide which combination of individual projects should be included in the coal resource development pathway, new data analysis and evaluation of important criteria (as previously outlined in this section) needs to take place to build upon the contextual information and provide justification for decisions. This information is largely based on the Assessment teams’ understanding of the intentions of each company engaged in resource development, and is independently validated (to the extent possible) with relevant experts.
The main focus of the coal resource development pathway description in companion product 2.3 should be to articulate the manner in which coal and CSG resource development is most likely to progress from its current situation (baseline) into the future. For many bioregions and subregions the coal resource development pathway may include multiple CSG production and/or large coal mining developments. Thus, it is suggested here that the coal resource development pathway be simply stated in an overarching introductory section of companion product 2.3. To provide an illustrative example of how such a coal resource development pathway overview could be written, the following statement has been prepared as a generic guide[5]:
‘The coal resource development pathway for the X subregion includes three new open-cut coal mines (include the names of the proposed mines here), two new underground longwall coal mines (include names here) and one coal seam gas development (include name here). The distribution and characteristics of these developments are shown in Figure A. Figure B shows the most likely timeline that each of these development stages becomes operational, and this timeline will be used when doing the surface water and groundwater modelling. Future development operations are expected to involve this, that, and the other (to be qualified to the extent possible based on available information). While there are a few other resource projects with economically demonstrated resources which could potentially be extracted at some stage in the future, these were deemed unlikely to proceed due to the following reasons…. Consequently, these projects were not included in the coal resource development pathway.’
As shown above, it is useful to include a new map as part of the coal resource development pathway description. This map can be used to display the location and type of proposed development, as well as projected start dates for various phases and other characteristics of the development such as annual tonnage to be extracted and proposed mining methods. It may be useful to show this in the context of existing infrastructure, towns and major environmental features such as rivers or lakes. To complement the map, it is also important to include an indicative timeline diagram (similar to a Gantt Chart) that effectively illustrates the temporal progression of each resource project (over the life of the expected development) within the bioregion or subregion, including recognition of the baseline projects as well as major development stages for each operation in the coal resource development pathway.
Building on the suggested high-level overview above, further information articulating the coal resource development pathway in any bioregion or subregion may also include (to the extent possible):
- explicit recognition that the stated coal resource development pathway represents the most likely development pathway at the time of writing (ensure that the coal resource development pathway is ‘time-stamped’) and that the actual roll-out of development may differ due to unforeseen factors as circumstances change in the future. In particular, resource development proposals may change over time in response to the main variables that influence development decisions. These may include revised updates on resource tonnage and grade based on new geoscientific data, changes to proposed mining techniques, or variations in market conditions and/or legislative arrangements. If known, such information should be clearly articulated as part of the description and assumptions used as basis for the coal resource development pathway
- a brief re-iteration of the development starting point of the BA, that is, the resource development ‘baseline’ as of the last quarter of 2012. This should include a high-level summary of the number of currently operating coal mines and CSG production operations, as well as key information such as location, project name, areal extent, mining and extraction methods, size of resource remaining and estimated mining life at current rates. There is no need to provide additional detailed information here, as this is a simple statement of current operations that is consistent with information already outlined in companion product 1.2
- the basis for which the proposed coal resource development pathway has been determined. For example, is it mainly based on plans outlined in submitted EIS documentation, or are there other elements that the respective project team has included, and on what basis were these inclusions made
- a description of any expectation for multiple development stages to occur for each resource project. For example, initial development of an open-cut mine, followed (at some time in the future) by a larger expansion of the open-cut operation and eventually proceeding to a late‑stage underground mining situation. If there is little information available on the possibility of later-stage expansions for individual projects, it may be possible for Assessment teams to base the potential for this to occur on the typical historical development trends of other deposits within or near to the bioregion or subregion. Of course, this approach will not be possible in some areas, such as greenfield coal development basins like the Galilee and Arckaringa
- an overarching explanation of how many individual developments comprise the most likely pathway, as well as a brief review of their main features such as name, type and status. This should also identify if these are new operations or expansions and modifications of existing mines
- additional information (e.g. supplied by resource development companies) that may help understand the circumstances for which the coal resource development pathway is considered valid. This may not always be possible due to information constraints (such as confidentiality), or independent variables that are difficult to anticipate or are outside of the control of the developers. It is useful to mention which companies have provided input to help verify or dispute a particular development for inclusion in the pathway
- explicit recognition of the identified coal or CSG resources (as listed in Section 1.2.4 of companion product 1.2) that have not been included in the coal resource development pathway and brief explanation of the reasons. This would not necessarily have to be done on a deposit-by-deposit basis, but could be grouped into larger themes relating to why certain resources are excluded, such as excluded due to economic factors, or lack of resource understanding, or technological and extraction difficulties, etc. To provide transparency of decisions in the BAs, it is important that the reasons for including or excluding each entry in the resource catalogue are adequately explained in the coal resource development pathway description. As for other components of BAs, justification of key decisions made in the course of the Programme need to be clearly stated
- a final part of the coal resource development pathway should also briefly describe the expected level, extent, style and focus of future exploration activities in the bioregion or subregion. This is important as it provides the context for the likelihood of future exploration programmes to contribute to further expansion of the identified coal and CSG resource inventory. Although it is not feasible for Assessment teams to speculate about the potential future for extraction of unknown resources, a brief review of current exploration activity will provide useful context for interested parties.
4.10 Information requirements for numerical modelling
Some of the details provided in the coal resource development pathway description are required data inputs for the subsequent quantitative modelling stages to assess development impacts to groundwater and surface water systems. However, an important point here is that some resource projects in the coal resource development pathway may not be able to be included in subsequent numerical modelling studies. This is most likely to occur for those projects that lack sufficient quantitative data (publicly available) about the proposed nature, scale and timing of development operations for them to be realistically included in modelling simulations (Table 9). In such cases, a qualitative explanation of potential impacts may be the only possible assessment. However, the main data gaps and uncertainties that restrict these developments from inclusion in modelling studies should be explicitly stated as part of the final modelling report.
The minimum information requirements that need to be reported in the coal resource development pathway for each coal or CSG resource development to satisfy the modelling inputs are shown in Table 9. This table distinguishes the expected variation in the availability of the most important data between coal or CSG development projects at the EIS stage, compared with those which are less-advanced and have greater overall uncertainty about the proposed development characteristics.
Table 9 presents the current understanding of the main information required from the coal resource development pathway for later modelling, although as modelling work proceeds, other necessary details may also emerge that are not currently accounted for. For example, surface water modelling may require information concerning on-site storage of mine-related water (aquifer dewatering storages), including details of how this capacity may change over time and what contingencies are in place if storages are exceeded. Information relating to salinity (and possibly other water quality indicators) of discharge water may also be needed as model inputs for some subregions or bioregions (N. Viney, (CSIRO), 2014, pers. comm.).
4.11 Information sharing with the wider bioregional assessment team
Although it is not intended specifically for this purpose, the research undertaken to describe the coal resource development pathway may also help other components of the bioregional assessment to focus on the water-dependent assets that are proximal to the most likely development zones, and thus potentially the most likely to be impacted by future operations. Thus, as a final comment in this submethodology, key components of information obtained during the research and writing of companion product 1.2 (see Table 6) and the subsequent coal resource development pathway analysis and description should be shared broadly with other disciplines working as part of the same Assessment team. This is especially for cases where information obtained during a particular component of the study is recognised as being of value to other aspects of the BA. A relevant example of this is any information related to groundwater and surface water management and monitoring plans, and data which are not reported specifically in companion products 1.2 or 2.3 (see Table 2), but which may be uncovered during the research work required for these stages.
Table 9 Summary of coal resource development pathway minimum data requirements for modelling and expected data availability for EIS and non-EIS stage coal and CSG resource projects
Type and number of modelling requirement |
Type of data and information required from coal resource development pathway for numerical modelling |
Expected availability of data for identified coal or CSG resources within the EIS assessment system |
Availability of data for identified coal or CSG resources not at EIS assessment stage |
---|---|---|---|
Surface water modelling requirement 1 |
Time series of mine development area. That is, the total area of mine operations in which rainwater is actively intercepted and retained. An annual time step is sufficient.
|
Mine development plans and the expected progression of mining over time are commonly provided in most resource company EIS documentation. These may be further modified or updated based on input from discussions with relevant companies. |
Preliminary mine design and development plans may be publicly available for some resource projects prior to release of EIS (e.g. from company-released reports or information provided on websites). However, there are no statutory requirements for such information to be released and it is at the discretion of each development company. Additionally, any preliminary plans are likely to be subject to more future variation than those provided as part of EIS submissions. |
Surface water modelling requirement 2
|
Locations and volume time series of any water extracted from the surface water network for mine or CSG operations. An annual time step may be sufficient. |
Expected annual volumes of surface water required for extraction are usually provided in operational water management and monitoring plans which would be expected to be included as part of EIS documentation. |
Details of surface water extraction volumes and timing are unlikely to be available for potential resource developments prior to EIS submission. If so, data availability would be at the discretion of the operating company. |
Surface water modelling requirement 3
|
Locations and volume time series of any water discharged to the streams. Except for produced CSG water, discharges are likely to be irregular and opportunistic and may need finer time steps. |
Expected annual volumes of surface water to be discharged to streams would usually be provided in operational water management and monitoring plans which would be expected to be included as part of EIS documentation. |
Details of surface water discharge volumes and timing are unlikely to be available for potential resource developments prior to EIS submission. |
Surface water modelling requirement 4
|
Details of extraction and disposal of water via the groundwater system. Preferably these will already be accounted for in the groundwater modelling. |
Information on plans for extraction and disposal of groundwater from mining and CSG operations should be provided as part of EIS documentation. |
Details of proposed groundwater extraction rates, volumes and timing for coal and CSG operations are unlikely to be publicly available for coal and CSG resources prior to EIS stage assessment. |
Groundwater modelling requirement 1 |
Nature and phasing of the resource extraction development i.e. is it likely to be an open-cut or underground mine, or are there plans for multiple stages to occur, such as progression from initial open-cut to underground operations. |
Initial mine development plans should be available as part of EIS documentation. However, many initial plans may not include details of larger-scale expansions or future underground operations. Thus, some additional analysis and expert judgment of how other nearby operations have progressed over time will be needed to decide if multiple development stages are likely in the future. |
Depending on the depth to the resource from surface, there are some basic rules-of-thumb that can be used to judge if a coal resource is likely to be mined by either open-cut or underground operations. Recognition of the type of development can also be judged with reference to nearby mining operations in the same area. |
Groundwater modelling requirement 2 |
Location of the resource development – note that this location will be represented in most BA groundwater models at 1000 metre grid cell resolution, so more precise location data (than this scale) will generally not be required for most subregions. |
EIS documentation should provide relevant information on the location of the development, including in some cases detailed layouts of proposed pit designs or underground mining areas. |
Detailed mining design plans are unlikely to be publicly available for most proposed resource projects prior to EIS stage. However, the approximate location of the development within a 1000 metre grid cell can probably be determined in most cases from other sources of information, such as company announcements or publicly available reports. |
Groundwater modelling requirement 3 |
Timing of resource development operations, such as dates for initial start-up, ramp-up time to full-scale operations and the expected mine-life duration. Also, as above, any multi-stage development potential should be assessed. |
EIS documentation should provide relevant information on the expected timing and phasing of development stages for mining and CSG operations. However, as mentioned above, this may not extend to coverage of potential additional stages of future development that may occur. |
This type of mine design and development detail is unlikely to be publicly available for most coal/CSG resources prior to EIS submission. However, there may be some cases where companies make such information available at a relatively early stage of planning, although there is no legislative requirement for this to be done. Essentially, the release of this type of planning detail is at the discretion of the development company. |
Groundwater modelling requirement 4 |
Fundamental stratigraphic information on the nature of the mineable coal-bearing formations, such as depth below surface to the top of the formations and the formation thickness. This is required to specify a target water-level for modelling of the mine dewatering plan. |
Geological investigations undertaken as part of resource characterisation are commonly summarised and presented as part of EIS documentation. Such information should provide sufficient detail required for proposed BA groundwater modelling. |
Basic information on the stratigraphy of the coal-bearing formations should be available from various public sources for most deposits, although it may not be as detailed for those deposits which are at a more preliminary stage of assessment (pre-EIS). |
Groundwater modelling requirement 5 |
Depth below surface to the watertable, as well as the water level depth in other relevant aquifers, e.g. the potentiometric surface of a relevant confined aquifer. |
Note that groundwater levels for most areas are likely to be obtained from other reference sources or components of work (contextual), rather than specifically from companion product 1.2 or the coal resource development pathway. However, EIS evaluation may provide more detailed understanding of groundwater levels and aquifer characteristics as part of relevant hydrogeology sections. |
Basic information on watertable depth should be available for most subregions, although the accuracy may vary. In most cases, this information should be sufficient, although it will generally not be as detailed as that provided from the more detailed resource-specific studies of hydrogeology. |
The information requirements outlined above that relate to geology, coal and CSG resource characteristics or mine development and operational plans and timelines will be reported as part of the coal resource development pathway discussion in companion product 2.3 (conceptual modelling). In contrast, the water-related information above will be provided and discussed in companion product 2.5 (water balance). EIS is environmental impact statement, CSG is coal seam gas. This table has been optimised for printing on A3 paper (297 mm x 420 mm).
METHODOLOGY FINALISATION DATE
- 1 Submethodology overview
- 2 The coal resource development pathway in bioregional assessments
- 3 Stage one of the coal resource development pathway – data and information inputs
- 4 Stage two of the coal resource development pathway – assessment
- References
- Appendix A Overview of Australia's coal and coal seam gas resources
- Appendix B Coal and coal seam gas resource definitions for bioregional assessments
- Appendix C Supply chain of coal and coal seam gas resource development
- Appendix D Useful data sources on coal and coal seam gas resources
- Shortened forms
- Citation
- Acknowledgements
- Contributors to the Technical Programme
- About this submethodology