The future of Western Australia’s energy supply is at a crossroads, with an embattled coal miner’s legacy potentially leaving taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in rehabilitation costs. Griffin Coal, an Indian-owned company, is at the centre of a controversial amendment to its mining agreement, which, if passed, could absolve it of its responsibility to clean up and restore its Collie mine site.
This proposed change, already approved by WA’s Legislative Council, comes as Griffin Coal is already a recipient of significant taxpayer support, propping up its crucial role in fuelling the state’s power grid. The amendments not only extend the mine’s operational life until 2031 but also grant the government the power to declassify state forest land located within or adjacent to the mine, effectively paving the way for further industrial activity over natural landscapes. The ultimate decision now rests with the WA Legislative Assembly, where the government commands a substantial majority.
The Collie mine site, a vast expanse visible even from space, has a long and complex history. Once a vibrant ecosystem of wetlands and Jarrah forests, it has been dramatically altered since mining operations commenced in the 1930s. The mine has been under receivership since 2021, following a decision by its Indian owners to cease operations amidst persistent operational challenges and mounting financial losses. Griffin Coal faces over $1 billion in debt, yet it remains the sole supplier to the Bluewaters Power Station, a facility responsible for approximately 15 per cent of Western Australia’s electricity generation. This precarious situation led the government to announce in January an extension of the mine’s life by five years, coupled with continued financial assistance.
Rehabilitation: A Task Beyond Current Capabilities?
The feasibility of rehabilitating the Collie mine site has been a subject of serious concern. Prominent botanist Professor Kingsley Dixon, who advised Griffin Coal on rehabilitation efforts in 2019, expressed grave doubts about the possibility of restoring the site to its former natural state.
“I indicated to them that with current technologies, this was beyond our technological capacity to bring back a native vegetation system,” Professor Dixon stated. He further described the undertaking as “very hard, maybe even in the too hard basket.”
The financial implications of such a monumental task are equally daunting. Professor Dixon estimated the costs of rehabilitating the site could run into the “thousands of millions,” a staggering figure that raises serious questions about who will ultimately bear the financial burden. The potential impact on local communities, should rehabilitation be neglected, is also a significant worry.
“Let’s hope the decommission of the Griffin coal pits doesn’t go the way we’ve seen of the Mt Isa mines in Queensland, where nothing much was done and we had major breaching of toxins,” he warned, highlighting past environmental failures in the mining industry.
A Dangerous Precedent for Taxpayers and the Environment
Historically, mining companies have been held accountable for the cost of cleaning up and restoring mine sites once their operations conclude. However, the proposed clause in Griffin Coal’s agreement represents a departure from this norm, being the first of its kind to be offered to a mining company in Western Australia. The potential cost to taxpayers, should the company be released from its obligations, is estimated to be in the billions.
Premier Roger Cook acknowledged that the Griffin agreement dates back nearly a century, a time when decommissioning processes were “minimal.” He noted that Griffin has been mining for over 100 years, referring to these as “legacy projects” and indicated that “conversations about what the future looks like” are ongoing. A government spokesperson, however, assured that Griffin’s clean-up obligations are not changing at present.
Despite these assurances, the amendment has drawn sharp criticism from environmental advocates. An attempt by the Greens to have the changes rejected in parliament was unsuccessful. Greens MLC Jess Beckerling voiced strong opposition, arguing that the clause sets a “poor example for other mining agreements across the state.”
“Normalising enabling big corporations to simply walk away from their environment-wrecking practices is simply not good enough and must not be enshrined into law,” she asserted. Beckerling concluded by stating, “This is obviously a really dangerous precedent that’s being set for future mining operations.” The decision on whether to allow Griffin Coal to potentially offload its rehabilitation responsibilities now rests with the Legislative Assembly, with significant financial and environmental ramifications hanging in the balance.
