During Estimates hearings on Tuesday 30 July 2024, I asked the Minister for Resources and Critical Minerals about the continuation of previously abandoned mines.
You can read my question and his full response below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
Mr BERKMAN: I will move on to another issue. Minister, I heard earlier your statement about the government response to the announced closure of Glencore’s operations in Mount Isa, especially within that the statement that the closure is a commercial decision by Glencore, although I understand there are some differing views in the industry about whether there is a commercially viable resource left at that site. How does the situation in Mount Isa and Glencore’s announcement relate to the objectives stated in the Resources Industry Development Plan of maximising commercial opportunity of abandoned mines? Has that been considered specifically by the department?
Mr STEWART: I thank the member for the question. I have met with the member for Traeger a couple of times. He has asked questions during question time as well. In terms of the viability of that particular resource, we knew that by 2019 Glencore had indicated to us—
CHAIR: I am going to jump in to remind everybody at the table that we do have a bill before the committee at the moment, if you can keep that in mind as you are responding to that question.
Mr STEWART: Thank you. I appreciate your guidance, Chair. Glencore indicated to us that by 2019 that resource would be almost exhausted. They did apply for an extension. As I said in response to a question previously, they have indicated that that is it. It is not commercially viable for them anymore, and that is a commercial decision that they have made. However, what we have said on many occasions—and will continue to say to industry and to investors—if there are interested investors who want to continue to pursue that mine or look at alternatives in pursuing that particular resource, our Department of Resources looks at facilitating how that can happen rather than regulating and saying, ‘No, you cannot.’ We are an open door to listen to any proponents who come to us with a genuine offer of pursuing that resource.
Mr BERKMAN: I will try to zoom out rather than focus on the specific project, given the private member’s bill before the committee. How does that objective within the Resources Industry Development Plan work in practical terms? What is the department’s approach where there is an existing leaseholder, be it Glencore or anyone else, who is not using the resource? Can the state rescind the mining lease and reissue it to other relevant authorities? How does it work in practice?
Mr STEWART: I think we are sailing a little close to the wind.
CHAIR: Yes.
Mr STEWART: What I will say is that there is a procedure. What is happening with Glencore is they have not walked away. They are still continuing those operations. They have indicated to us that they will close in 2025. What happens across mines quite often is that we do not get this lead time like we have seen with Glencore in Mount Isa. There is an opportunity for Glencore to sell that lease to another proponent, if they choose to do. We need to ensure there is a process—that they stack up environmentally, socially and financially. We want to continue to ensure workers live in Mount Isa, as they have done for a hundred years now working with Mount Isa Mines.
We are always open to looking at ways that we can continue those mines. In fact, we now have proponents looking at reactivating some of the old mines that have been abandoned. A great example of this is EQ Resources in Far North Queensland. There was an old abandoned tungsten mine and they have taken it over. They are reprocessing and, in fact, they are going gangbusters now. They are also going into Wolfram Camp mine. It is also an old abandoned tungsten mine. We worked actively with proponents to reinvigorate this.
Through our Critical Minerals Strategy we are looking at ways that we can reprocess tailings dams. Rather than mining proponents and companies digging another big scar in the ground, there are opportunities that exist—and we have some funding associated with that—where they can reprocess. Mount Isa Mines are targeting lead, zinc and copper. We know that, for want of a better word, in cohabitation with copper is usually cobalt, which was a waste product. Now it is highly valuable for the batteries needed for electric vehicles.
It allows those proponents, as I said, not to dig a new scar. It means that they can bring that product much more quickly to market. In fact, when we were in South Korea we met a company that was very keen to reprocess some of the tailings in the North West Minerals Province. We have seen that happening at Rocklands, where the University of Queensland is working with JOGMEC, which is a Japanese organisation, to reprocess those tailings dams to bring that product to market more quickly.