On 10 December 2025, the Queensland Government released the Guideline - General conditions for critical minerals projects (ESR/2025/7261, version 1.00) (Guideline). Critical minerals are any metallic or non-metallic elements that are essential for the functioning of modern technologies, economies or national security and are at risk of supply chain disruption.
The aim of the Guideline is to reduce environmental authority (EA) assessment timeframes for graphite, copper, cobalt, nickel, tungsten, alumina, vanadium, high purity silica sands and rare earth element projects. However, does the promise of faster approvals come at the cost of operational efficiency?
In this article, we consider the general conditions that proponents must accept to access the expedited assessment pathway for critical minerals projects.
Mineral processing limit
The Guideline sets annual extraction and mineral processing limits.
It seems the days when EA conditions focused on impacts rather than operations are gone. While industry has accepted extraction limits for some time, there may be good reason to think twice before accepting a limit on production. By imposing dual limitations, proponents will be required to manage extraction volumes and processing throughput as separate compliance metrics, risking inefficient resource utilisation and stranded capital investment.
The processing limit may also limit a proponent's ability to:
- respond to market conditions;
- optimise its process chart to improve production output from run-of-mine tonnes; or
- capitalise on richer deposit discoveries within their mine plan.
It is difficult to see any countervailing environmental benefit from the imposition of processing limits.
Absolute prohibition on groundwater contamination
The Guideline imposes an absolute prohibition on the release of contaminants to groundwater. The practical implications of this condition warrant careful consideration.
The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act) defines contaminant
broadly as:
- a gas, liquid or solid; or
- an odour; or
- an organism (whether alive or dead), including a virus; or
- energy, including noise, heat, radioactivity and electromagnetic radiation; or
- a combination of contaminants.
Schedule 4 of the EP Act provides that release
, of a contaminant into the environment, includes:
- to deposit, discharge, emit or disturb the contaminant; and
- to cause or allow the contaminant to be deposited, discharged, emitted or disturbed; and
- to fail to prevent the contaminant from being deposited, discharged, emitted or disturbed; and
- to allow the contaminant to escape; and
- to fail to prevent the contaminant from escaping.
Given the breadth of the definition of contaminant
and the inclusion of passive releases within the definition of release
, a condition prohibiting all releases of contaminants to groundwater should be carefully considered in the context of each project.
The Model Mining Conditions (ESR/2016/1936, version 6.03) provide the following guidance for determining whether an EA should prohibit all releases of contaminants to groundwater:
This condition [prohibiting releases of contaminants to groundwater] is only to be used when it has been identified that no release of contaminants to groundwater is to occur as a result of mining activities. The definition of a ‘contaminant’ is set out in Section 11 of the EP Act and relevantly includes any ‘gas, liquid or solid’, not just hazardous contaminants. For example, it would include the replenishment of aquifers with water of the same quality or higher quality than the aquifers. The term ‘release’ is defined in Schedule 4 of the EP Act and relevantly, it should be noted that this includes passive releases and not merely controlled releases. Accordingly, if it is likely that the activity will lead to the passive replenishment of aquifers, even with good quality water, this condition should not be used.
The Guideline departs from the position in the Model Mining Conditions which contemplate that the administering authority, in consultation with the proponent, will determine specified locations, frequencies and limits for the release of contaminants that account for local hydrogeological conditions, background water quality and the nature of mining operations. The Guideline removes this collaborative approach, instead requiring proponents to prevent all releases of contaminants to groundwater regardless of environmental impact.
Expanded notification obligations
The Guideline materially increases proponents' notification obligations.
Strict notification requirements relating to the potential for unlawful harm already arise under the legislation. EAs routinely bolt on additional notification requirements. These additional requirements have crept
over the years from a requirement to notify the release of contaminants with the potential to cause harm, to a requirement to notify anything that occurs other than in accordance with the EA.
The Guideline takes another leap forward, seeking to impose a requirement that proponents notify of matters within 24 hours of becoming aware, or the time when the proponent ought reasonably to have become aware of an actual or potential contravention of any EA condition.
The position under the Model Mining Conditions requires notification within 24 hours of proponents becoming aware of a contravention. The Guideline lacks clarity as to who determines when the proponent ought reasonably to have become aware, how this is determined and what factors are considered.
Breaching an EA condition attracts criminal penalties. As a result, it is incumbent on the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (Department) to ensure that EA conditions are clear, and that compliance can be measured and demonstrated. This new condition seems to disregard those considerations and appears to be a substantial over-reach.
Similarly, the Guideline requires that proponents notify occupiers or registered owners of affected land and potentially impacted stakeholders within 24 hours after becoming aware, or the time when the proponent ought reasonably to have become aware, of any incident that has the potential to impact on environmental values or breaches any EA condition concerning releases of contaminants to the environment. The notification must include location, date and time of the incident, estimated quantity and type of substance released, potential impacts, and any precautionary health measures that should be taken.
By contrast, the Model Mining Conditions require only that proponents maintain records of environmental complaints received. This reactive approach is less onerous than the proactive notification obligations imposed by the Guideline.
Looking ahead
No doubt, industry welcomes an initiative to speed up approvals. However, the Guideline appeared on the Department's website in December 2025 with limited fanfare or consultation. Industry should consider whether the Guideline is fit for purpose or should be revisited if it is to deliver on its stated purpose.
In some respects, the Guideline sets a potentially unachievably high bar. Has it sped up the approvals process, or will negotiating operationally sensible project-specific conditions take longer now that it has been released?
Industry should consider whether the Guideline is fit for purpose or should be revisited if it is to deliver on its stated purpose.
This article picks on a couple of stand-out conditions. We would be happy to discuss the Guideline and its application to your project.
Contact
Tim Hanmore
