The Australian Mining Review

Minesite Rehabilita­tion

How can mining companies better plan for mine rehabilita­tion and restoratio­n? It’s the million dollar question that has prompted a Federal Government inquiry into the matter.

- ELIZABETH FABRI

MINE site rehabilita­tion practices across Australia are under more scrutiny than ever before.

In February 2017, the Federal Government launched an inquiry into the rehabilita­tion of resources projects.

Once published, it will put a spotlight on current policies, safeguards – and of course – ways the industry can collaborat­e to improve what has become a contentiou­s issue.

More than 90 submission­s have been received to date from mining companies, industry groups, associatio­ns, and State and Territory Government­s.

Many were of the view that current practices were not sufficient, with more clarity and direction needed to prevent the number of abandoned legacy mines – now a State liability – from growing further.

Society for Ecological Restoratio­n Australasi­a (SERA) chair and Australian Research Council Centre for Mine Site Restoratio­n director Professor Kingsley Dixon was one industry leader of this view.

“The industry has demonstrat­ed that it lacks the ability to successful­ly and confidentl­y restore post-mined landscapes,” Professor Dixon told The Australian Mining Review.

“More mines open than close leading to a growing cumulative impact and legacy for future government­s to address.

“The ability to restore has not substantiv­ely improved for the bulk of the mining footprint in Australia.

“However there are industry who have strategica­lly invested in R&D and are now achieving outcomes.

“Investment in R&D, either within the company or externally, is critical to climate-proof restoratio­n in the future.”

Issues such as the cost of outstandin­g rehabilita­tion obligation­s, effectiven­ess of current Australian practices in safeguardi­ng human health and the environmen­t, and adequacy of financial mechanisms (State bonds and funds) were weighing heavily on industry and would be addressed in the inquiry.

A number of rehabilita­tion-focused industry bodies and organisati­ons were also working towards strategies, including SERA; the Centre for Mined Land Rehabilita­tion; Minerals Council of Australia; and the Tom Farrell Institute, an environmen­tal research and teaching arm at The University of Newcastle, which holds the annual Best Practice Ecological Rehabilita­tion of Mined Lands Conference in NSW.

Industry Feedback

Ahead of the inquiry’s close in October this year, the industry has sent lengthy submission­s for considerat­ion.

Minerals Council Australia (MCA) chief executive Tania Constable said the Council’s submission advocated a continued primary role by State and Territory Government­s in the regulation of mine rehabilita­tion, closure and financial assurance.

“Each jurisdicti­on already has in place a mature regulatory framework for managing these matters,” Ms Constable said.

“Adding a further layer of regulation would result in additional complexity and potential duplicatio­n of effort for the industry, and is unlikely to deliver enhanced rehabilita­tion outcomes.”

Ms Constable said the Australian Government could contribute to improved rehabilita­tion and policy outcomes nationally through a variety of alternativ­e approaches, including facilitati­on of dialogue between jurisdicti­ons and industry to share knowledge, and the promotion of leading practice through the publicatio­n of relevant guidance.

Financial mechanisms

The effectiven­ess of current financial mechanisms across States and Territorie­s was a highlighte­d issue.

The Tasmanian Government said security deposits were reviewed regularly, with tenement holders providing a descriptio­n of the rehabilita­tion practices they intended to use to help set an appropriat­e sum.

“The security deposit is only released when the minister administer­ing the MRDA is satisfied that rehabilita­tion criteria have been met,” it stated.

Launched in 2006, the Northern Territory’s financial security requiremen­t was designed to cover 100 per cent of the estimated costs of remediatio­n.

However, the Territory faces potential issues with mines establishe­d before 2005.

“The Northern Territory has a number of legacy mine sites which, if unmanaged, pose long-term risk to the natural environmen­t, as well as to public safety,” the Territory stated in its submission.

“Most legacy sites were created before 2005, and thus pre-dated the NT Government policy of requiring mining operators to lodge adequate financial security.

“As a result such mines have either inadequate or non-existent securities.”

SERA’s Mr Dixon said from his understand­ing the Australian bond system was “inadequate to meet a meet a minimum level of rehabilita­tion, let alone restoratio­n”.

“Achieving the level of restoratio­n aspired to in the National Standards will require substantia­lly greater investment by industry that, in many cases will exceed their bonds by orders of magnitude,” he said.

MCA’s Ms Constable said financial assurance and provisioni­ng was important, but a security bond did not remove a company’s obligation to rehabilita­te land.

“Mine rehabilita­tion is highly regulated, better implemente­d and more accountabl­e than ever before,” Ms Constable said.

“Each jurisdicti­on has in place regulatory safeguards – subject to periodic review – designed to mitigate the risk of operators avoiding their rehabilita­tion obligation­s.”

Effective Restoratio­n

The Centre for Mine Site Restoratio­n said there was also a problem of definition, with the term ‘restoratio­n’ often incorrectl­y interchang­ed with ‘rehabilita­tion’.

The restoratio­n process assists the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed.

Rehabilita­tion reinstates a level of ecosystem functional­ity on degraded sites – without necessaril­y reverting to an ecosystem’s pre-mining biodiversi­ty.

The Centre said the technical capacity and science to achieve restoratio­n for many Australian mine sites was “limited” which was a key constraint in achieving proven, cost-effective and scalable solutions.

“Although there are a handful of notable exceptions, it is clear that in Australia the majority of mining restoratio­n projects are failing to deliver on the return of functional, representa­tive, biodiverse and resilient ecosystems that are based on a suitable ‘reference community’,” the Centre said.

Reasons for this included inadequate biodiversi­ty surveys; insufficie­nt, inconsiste­nt, and uncoordina­ted supply of high-quality geneticall­y appropriat­e seed; lack of biological knowledge to maximise seedling; limited understand­ing of the physiology of plant establishm­ent; and “critical shortage” of restoratio­n researcher­s trained to overcome challenges in the resources sector.

“Currently, the costs of restoratio­n are not being adequately determined prior to regulatory approval being granted,” the centre added.

“A full and complete understand­ing of the costs of restoratio­n, which will vary markedly between landforms, operations and regions, must be determined and presented during initial mine planning and be included transparen­tly as part of the approvals process.”

Native Title

Dr Rebecca Lawrence from the Macquarie University Department of Geography and Planning argued that Aboriginal Australian­s had more to lose from inadequate rehabilita­tion and closure practices than any other segment of the population.

“The majority of mining in Australia takes place on the Aboriginal estate and Traditiona­l Owners, unlike many others involved in mining, do not leave when mines close,” Dr Lawrence said.

“They and their homelands will bear, in some cases for many generation­s, the costs of any failures in mine closure policy and regulation.”

Dr Lawrence also pointed to “troubling trends” documented in other submission­s to the Inquiry, including asset transfers and mines being held indefinite­ly in “care and maintenanc­e” as a way to avoid rehabilita­tion.

She recommende­d the Commonweal­th lead a “complete overhaul” of State policy and legislatio­n to ensure native title interests are fully recognised and protected, and support native title holders and claimants in negotiatin­g native title agreements that deal comprehens­ively with mine closure, rehabilita­tion, and post-closure.

The Road Ahead

MCA’s Ms Constable said research innovation was key to improving rehabilita­tion outcomes.

“The Australian Coal Research Program (ACARP) is an example of collective industry effort to improve rehabilita­tion performanc­e through innovative research,” Ms Constable said.

“Between 2007 and 2016 ACARP spent around $10 million on rehabilita­tion related research.

“The research program, while funded by the industry, is undertaken by independen­t researcher­s from government (CSIRO), universiti­es (e.g. the University of Queensland, Central Queensland University) and private sector specialist­s.”

Mr Dixon said there was also some exciting new technologi­es in the pilot stages including creating synthetic topsoils; accelerati­ng plant growth competency in post mined materials through use of the soil micro biome; seed pelleting and coating technologi­es; metabarcod­ing for rapid biodiversi­ty assessment of pre and post-mined sites; and seed farming of native species, which was in its early stages.

Mr Dixon said seed farming of native species promises to deliver a social (Indigenous businesses), environmen­tal (sourcing seed from sustainabl­e managed sources) and reliable outcomes (through a supply of high quality seed to industry).

The use of remote sensing and drone technology was also facilitati­ng new mapping and monitoring techniques, and rehabilita­tion practices such as turning open pit voids into pumped hydro practices were in the works.

“The role of pumped hydro as a post-mining land use needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” Ms Constable said.

“Mine altered landscapes and voids can have value and generate different land use opportunit­ies.

“A pit or a pit lake may have future uses, including social (e.g. recreation), conservati­on (e.g. wetlands) or environmen­tal and economic (e.g. Woodlawn bioreactor near New South Wales, and the pumped hydro energy park in Queensland).”

“Mine altered landscapes and voids can have value and generate different land use opportunit­ies.”

 ?? Image:Glencore. ??
Image:Glencore.
 ?? Image:Glencore. ?? Clermont rehabilita­tion.
Image:Glencore. Clermont rehabilita­tion.
 ?? Image:Newmont. ?? Woodcutter­s Borrow pit (future wetland).
Image:Newmont. Woodcutter­s Borrow pit (future wetland).
 ?? Image: Glencore. ?? Westside Rehabilita­tion.
Image: Glencore. Westside Rehabilita­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia