Environmental Management Plan. Emp For The Stage 1 Construction And Operation Of The: Fill & Download for Free

How much carbon pollution will be released if Malcolm Turnbull and Mugmar Adani's 447 square kilometres (173 sq miles), coal mine goes ahead?While I am not an expert in coal mining nor climate change, I have had hands-on work experiences in regulatory environmental monitoring as well as contributing to environmental impact assessments (EIA) reports, here in Malaysia.The given link was a head start, however as I was reading more into it, there was no mistaking which stance the report was written on, leaning heavily towards the objection of the mine. Most definitely, it is not from the project proponent.Using resources made available online with no other insider information, it took me some time to put this together; to form opinions from a neutral ground as well as a bird’s eye view.Photo Credit: Thousands of Adani Mine protestors forming a #STOP ADANI sign on Bondi Beach, Sydney. ABC NewsSince this is an ongoing contentious issue, the Commonwealth has already set its boundaries and guidelines in so much width and details; my input here would be as a minor case study, rather than from an authoritative standpoint.Carbon Emissions from Adani Carmichael Mine ProjectLet’s begin with a rundown of the project, the significant points from the Environmental Impact Statement reports sent for Queensland Government’s Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning; state level approval to the federal level.Starting from proposal stage in 2010 until recently, the narrative of the mine has changed so much. And so has the stipulated carbon emissions.Initial proposal (October 2010)[1]:Mine life: 150 yearsCapital investment: AUD 16.4 (USD 12.6) billion for mine operations onlyProduction rate: 2 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) by the first year of operation, then build up to 60 Mtpa by 2022Carbon emissions: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for specific operation stages in developmentAfter revision (November 2012)[2]:Mine life: 90 yearsCapital investment: AUD 21.5 (USD 16.5) billion for on-site mine.Production rate:Per annum: 60 Mtpa by 2022Estimated total production: 5.4 billion tonne* (Number of mine life years x production per annum)Carbon emissions at mine site[3]:Average per annum: approximately 2,285,578 t CO2-e (Scope 1 and Scope 2)Over the life of mine: 206 million t CO2-eFurther amendments (October 2013):Mine life: 60 yearsCapital investment: AUD 21.5 billion for on-site mine.Production rate:Per annum: 60 Mtpa by 2022Estimated total production: 3.6 billion tonne*Carbon emissions at mine site[4]:Average per annum: approximately 1,440,198 t CO2-e (Scope 1 and Scope 2)Over the life of mine: 86 million t CO2-e*Based on the Mining Plan provided in Supplementary EIS (SEIS), October 2013, during the early phase, the average production rate will be around 20 Mtpa. Then, 5 to 10 years onwards, it will reach peak production of 60 Mtpa. Production will start to drop after about 30 years (of peak production) from 290 Mtpa to 300 Mtpa down to 120 Mtpa and lesser. This means the yearly carbon emissions will also be high during those years; and expected to be lesser for the years after. The average production for product coal is 40Mtpa. And this brings to around 2.3 billion tonnes over 60 years of mine life.Succeeding this, there has been a revised EMP, in March 2014 corresponding to Commonwealth and Queensland’s energy and greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions legislation. The Coordinator-General later releases its evaluation of the mine’s EIS to be approved by an exhaustive list of environmental and social impact commitments (pre-conditions), in May 2014[5]for the project proponent to take notice and to be managed, prior to commencement of mining operations.By July 2014, at the Federal level of environmental law, under the Commonwealth Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999, the proposal of this mine has been rejected once and then given a re-approval on 36 strictest environmental conditions in Australian history[6].In addition to typical environmental impact (values) executed for regulatory environmental monitoring such as air, water, noise, dust, soil, blasting, etc., those strictest conditions involves creating separate and exclusive monitoring programs and managements for each of the potential environmental impacts specific to the sites (mine and terminal points).For example, at the mine site and its vicinity:Surface water and groundwater monitoring and modelling the flow and catchment pattern of smaller tributaries namely Carmichael River (Eight Mile Creek and others) and Belyando River, that spreads over the Doongmabulla and Mellaluka Springs Complex within the Great Artesian Basin.Baseline data of local threatened species are also collected. When such data are established, the monitoring team will be able to observe how operational activities impact environmental values, before, during and after mine construction. From here, offset values are to be secured by the project proponent while monitoring and recovery (and/or rehabilitation) programs follow throughout each operational stages. Some of the outstanding threatened native species include:Threatened fauna: Black Throated FinchesThreatened flora: Waxy Cabbage PalmThreatened ecology: Brigalow WoodlandsPhoto Credit: Australian Black Throated FinchesFollowing this approval, in terms of mining law, the Mineral Resources Act (MRA) 1989, which falls back under the Queensland state, the Adani Carmichael Mine has been granted its mining lease; the green light. According to Adani Enterprises Ltd., construction of the mine has started in October 2017 and the first coal production will be out by the first quarter of 2020[7].In a span of seven (7) years, from the proposal stage from State to Federal approval level, the mine life has been reduced from 150 years to 90 years and finally 60 years. Hence, the Carmichael Mine’s stipulated carbon emissions has also been reduced from approximately 2,285,578 t (2,385 kt) CO2-e to approximately 1,440,198 t (1,440 kt) CO2-e average per year.Carmichael’s Carbon Emissions in ContextThe reason why many people are furious and protest against the approval of this coal mine is that, not only we are currently in the times of gearing up towards more sustainability practices and solutions, renewable energy resources, lesser fossil fuel consumption, low to zero carbon emission technologies, commitments to reduce climate change; but also because Carmichael’s stipulated carbon emissions of approximately 1.4 Mt CO2-e per year is almost the same as the national average, negating what Australia has been working hard for, in the past 15 years.Photo Credit: The Australia InstituteIn the past years, Australia is one of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and has completed the first phase of commitment in year 2008 to 2012, achieving its target to increase emissions by 8% of 1990 levels. In the second phase from year 2013 to 2020, which we are in at the moment, the target is to reduce 5% emissions below 2000 levels. And if very possible, to increase emissions reduction as much as 15% to 25% to stay below the global warming budget of 2°C or less, by year 2050[8].According to the study done by The Australia Institute, article dated November 2015, the stipulated Carmichael mine emissions alone is comparatively more than the total carbon emissions of big cities, combined. And this is where the global warming and climate change alarm bells goes off: on loud speakers.Photo Credit: The Australia InstituteBut..…..is that really all of the carbon emissions??Nope.Scoping for Scope 3 EmissionsIn carbon accounting, there are three (3) scopes of emissions. The above stipulated carbon emissions is only for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Scope 3 emissions is not included in the EIS and SEIS as it is not a requirement under the Terms of Reference (ToR) of National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS).To account for the national GHG inventory, this scheme is one of the legislative frameworks in Australia that hold industries responsible to report and declare their emissions. For Carmichael mine, the measuring, monitoring and reporting are in compliance to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act (NGER) 2007 and NGER Regulation 2008, subdivision 4.4.3- Emissions- coal mining and Schedule 3, Part 1- Coal Mining[9].Photo Credit: Scope 3 Calculation Guidance, GHG ProtocolFor direct and indirect emissions, Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions covers on-site industrial emissions; where its variables are considered as controllable. The variables can be measured, managed and/or mitigated, and changed, as necessary.Scope 3 emissions, on the other hand, as what is commonly understood, are out of site emissions, to which the emissions cannot be controlled but are indirectly related to every possible level of the upstream (input) and downstream (output) activities in a business or company.To grasp the concept of scoping emissions, imagine this simple scenario. You walk past by a large crowd. A number of them are smokers, smoking their cigarettes, cigars, vapourisers, etc. puffing away smoke into the air. From where you stand, you can see smoke and you can also smell smoke in the air, but are you able to tell…Who are the smokers and the non-smokers?Which one of the smokers; are regular smokers, occasional/social smokers and first time smokers?Which smoke comes from which smoker?Which smoker produced the most smoke in that area?Which smoke is the most toxic and harmful?Were there any other smokers in the crowd who was not smoking, but are actually smokers; and smoked before and/or after entering or leaving the crowd, thus contributing to the fumes and smell?Using the above analogy, the Scope 1 emissions is like the first hand smoke. Scope 2 emissions is similar to second hand smoke. And Scope 3 emissions is akin to third hand smoke.It should be stated that there are several methods to measure and calculate carbon emissions. Most figures are of the closest estimations; from monitoring observable parameters along with multiplying them with allocated emissions factor, to acquiring more accurate data where on-site emissions level are taken by direct sampling and analysis of carbon content (ie. fuel combustion) to lessen the probabilities of data overlapping and double counting, especially for Scope 3 assessment.As an international standard framework, GHG Protocol has established a Scope 3 Standard for businesses to assess their value chain emissions in 15 categories of possible upstream and downstream activities such as purchasing, employee’s commute, waste generation, investment, etc., that could possibly contribute to Scope 3 emissions[10]. From here, businesses and companies can place boundaries and identify where to cut down and consequently, reduce their carbon footprint, if they wish to become a part of the climate change solution.For Carmichael mine, the circumstances are a little different. The scope of emissions extend, beyond Scope 1 and Scope 2. First, Adani plans to burn its mined coal on mine site for its own power generation and utilization, where the largest source of emission is imported electricity from the grid at 57% and then, diesel consumption at 38%. Secondly, 70% of the product coal is for export, therefore Scope 3 emissions takes into account the transportation by rail from the mine site to the ports, then shipping the coal and of course, coal for engine combustion; giving an additional amount of 77,395,516 t CO2-e per year (Scope 3)[11].This totals up to an average of approximately 78,833,137 t CO2-e per year (Scope 1 + Scope 2 + Scope 3) for Carmichael’s stipulated carbon emissions. Over the life of mine of 60 years, this would produce approximately 4,729,988,241 t CO2-e.Let’s round it up to 4.7 gigatonnes over 60 years. That’s a lot isn’t it?Now, going back to year 2014, where there was a revised EMP (scroll back to top) in regards to GHG requirements and environmental pre-conditions that was required to be addressed. Climate change experts were called on to give their advice.According to the Joint Report dated December 2014 and Individual Report dated February 2015[12], there is a 66% or higher likelihood to remain under the 2°C limit, that the global budget of 1000 gigatonnes of CO2-e is still available after 2011. For comparison, it would take the entire global carbon reserves to bring an excessive emission offset of 4000 to 7000 gigatonnes CO2-e to finally cause a 2°C and even higher rise in temperature. Assuming then a total of about 150 gigatonnes CO2-e (around 40 gigatonnes of global emissions every year) are spent for years 2012 to 2015, there is a remaining of 850 gigatonnes of CO2-e. And 4.7 gigatonnes of carbon emissions out of that amount is 0.53% to 0.56%. In other words, the amount of carbon emissions emitted from Carmichael coal mine and its operational activities, are not likely to exceed the 2°C global warming budget.However so, from an ethical and cumulative emissions point of view, one of the climate change experts, Assoc. Professor Meinshausen from University of Melbourne, notes that:in order to estimate climate change impacts that result from a certain project, it does not matter which scope (1, 2 or 3) the emissions are resulting from. Distinguishing among scopes can be a relevant issue when it comes to building emission inventories, but seems irrelevant when it comes to assigning potential responsibility for additional emissions to a certain project.And most importantly…the resulting climate change is the same, no matter where the CO2 emissions occur geographically, whether in Australia or overseas. The contribution to climate change is hence unequivocally clear in a physical cause-effect sense, i.e. that mining coal from a permanent storage (the coal mine) will ultimately lead to higher CO2 concentrations and climate change (unless the carbon is returned to a permanent storage, e.g. via CCS** again).** CCS: Carbon capture and storageThink we all can agree on that the Adani Carmichael Mine Project is indeed, a coal conundrum.Thank you for the A2A request. And thank you for reading!Footnotes[1] https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/project/carmichael/initial-advice-statement.pdf[2] http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Carmichael%20Coal%20Mine%20and%20Rail/EIS/EIS/Project%20Wide/01-introduction-project-wide.pdf[3] http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Carmichael%20Coal%20Mine%20and%20Rail/EIS/Appendices/T-Mine-Greenhouse-Gas-Report.pdf[4] http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Carmichael%20Coal%20Mine%20and%20Rail/SEIS/Appendices/Appendix-M-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Report.pdf[5] https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/project/carmichael/carmichael-coal-mine-and-rail-cg-report-may2014.pdf[6] Strictest conditions on Carmichael Coal Mine project[7] https://www.adani.com/docs/Work%20on%20Carmichael%20plant%20to%20begin%20in%20October[8] Climate Change Authority | Climate Change Authority[9] National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008[10] Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard[11] http://envlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/carmichael14.pdf[12] http://envlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/carmichael16.pdf