Expansion could drive up emissions

By Paula Wallace

The project configuration for the massive expansion as outlined in BHP’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), has been questioned for, among other things, its increased electricity use and carbon footprint.
Figures released last week by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) put the potential energy usage of the expanded operation in a different perspective than that supplied by BHP.
The expansion’s peak emissions of 4.7 million tonnes per annum in 2020 would add 9.8 per cent to South Australia’s predicted annual greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions, according to BHP - and would add 0.74 per cent to the predicted national emissions total.
ACF has disputed this, suggesting that the “exaggerated ‘business as usual’ base line” gives a false representation of the potential impact on South Australia’s emissions.
According to ACF figures, BHP is seeking approval from the South Australian and Federal Governments for an increase of at least 12.4 per cent and up to 14.3 per cent by 2020 to South Australia’s current total ghg emissions of 33 million tonnes a year.
At the same time, the Premier of South Australia Mike Rann has committed to limiting the State's ghg emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels during 2008-12, as a first step towards reducing emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
The existing Olympic Dam operations already use around 10 per cent of South Australia’s baseload power demand, of 870GWh annually.
The electricity demand for the proposed expansion would increase over time, ultimately requiring about 650MW of electricity, consuming 4,400GWh annually – around five times its current consumption.
The new electricity supply source for the proposed expansion would not be needed until 2013, by which time claims BHP, South Australia would require new baseload electricity generation capacity anyway.
ACF has also questioned the validity of this claim:
“The EIS and economic modelling does not include emissions trading nor other climate change policies – just ‘business as usual’ growth projections and assumptions of a near 50 per cent increase in Australian emissions from 2010 to 2050 and for an inflated claimed 80 per cent increase in SA’s total emissions by 2050.”
It was also reported on August 3rd that mining companies are in talks with the Federal Government over whether the copper industry will be granted free permits to cover greenhouse gas emissions.
If the talks are successful, BHP could be shielded from some of the high costs of greenhouse pollution associated with the mine's expansion under the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Last week, the media was proliferating ACF’s claims, particularly in South Australia, with some commentators even suggesting that it would make sense for BHP to power its expansion with nuclear energy generated from its own uranium.
Not the ideal solution from ACF’s point of view, who are also maintaining their opposition to the mining of uranium at the Roxby Downs and its export due to unique “serious and inherent nuclear risks and unresolved nuclear waste management issues”.
BHP Billiton remained silent throughout, maintaining that it will not comment while the “EIS process is ongoing”. However, a spokesperson told the Australian Journal of Mining that he was confident that BHP had addressed all the relevant issues in the 4600-page Draft EIS.
The ACF’s David Noonan said, “…they [BHP] should of course be participating in the public consultation period to facilitate informed public input and decisions.
“BHP’s Draft EIS has not addressed feasible alternatives as project options to provide a basis for informed consideration and input and to facilitate Government decisions…in the public interest.”
The environmental group said the EIS should include the option of fully sourcing electricity from renewable sources as well as emissions trading in its 2020 timeline and a carbon cost curve for the 5-6 year construction period.
It seems the ACF will have to wait for BHP's formal response in its Supplementary EIS due in February next year, with the miner declining to comment. However, the current EIS states that “no commercially viable solar or wind energy solution has been identified at the baseload scale required. A concentrated solar thermal study…is ongoing.”
It also considered commercial ventures to investigate potential geothermal heat anomalies in the Olympic Dam region, with the intention of proving the feasibility of baseload power generation. But, “as no proven supply currently exists at the scale required for the expansion, this would remain an opportunity for the future.”
BHP has put forward two proven primary electricity supply options: a 275kV transmission line between Port Augusta to Olympic Dam (270km) to draw on the National Electricity Market; and a 600 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station at Olympic Dam to be supplied by a pipeline at Moomba.
BHP may also build a cogeneration power station at Olympic Dam which could use waste heat to generate up to 250MW.
The expansion’s desalination plant would be supplied by renewable energy sourced from the national grid, but it is not clear whether this would also apply to the additional 22MW required to pump the desalinated water to the mine site.
BHP said its goal is the reduce its ghg emissions, reportable under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008, to an amount equivalent to at least a 60 per cent reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. In regard to the expansion-related ghg emission this would relate to only a portion of the CO2 emissions not the total amount.
ACF said the miner has not produced “any timeline commitment for any proposed element to meet a 60 per cent reduction – other than by 2050…BHP assumes the right to pollute at unacceptable levels for decades…the mine could then close without any of this claimed abatement having been undertaken.”
The ACF’s Tony Mohr said if the mine expansion was approved South Australia’s emissions would continue to rise and not peak until after the mine reached full production in 2020-21.
"The mine expansion would also be one of the biggest impacts on Australia's efforts to meet international emissions targets,” he said.
Public submissions to the State and Federal Governments on BHP's Draft EIS close this week.

To read more about BHP’s proposed expansion of Olympic Dam, click here.