Public Submissions Grosvenor Mine Inquiry into Methane Explosion are now open and close on 14th April. Chance for Mineworkers to officially tell The Inquiry and Queensland Public what YOU think?

I have been in correspondence with the Inquiry about making a public submissions to the Grosvenor Mine Inquiry.

I urge anyone that has been following the evidence at the Inquiry and wishes to make a submission to please do so.

There is no need to answer all or even the majority of issues.

For instance if you only want to make a submission about say only 3 or 1 as in this example I can see no reason why you cannot. Just state what issues you will and will not be addressing in your submission

1. The causes of the 27 methane exceedance HPIs on longwall 103 and 104 at Grosvenor mine between 1 July 2019 and 5 May 2020.
2. The adequacy of the mine’s responses to those HPIs.
3. The adequacy of the Inspectorate’s role in responding to those methane exceedances.

I am awaiting a reply to the following questions

Hi Stuart,

Following on from the email yesterday (below for your reference) , the key issues to be addressed in written submissions are as follows:

1. The causes of the 27 methane exceedance HPIs on longwall 103 and 104 at Grosvenor mine between 1 July 2019 and 5 May 2020.
2. The adequacy of the mine’s responses to those HPIs.
3. The adequacy of the Inspectorate’s role in responding to those methane exceedances.
4. What the evidence establishes about the nature and cause of the serious accident at Grosvenor mine on 6 May 2020, including:
   1. The relative likelihood of a strata collapse or a methane explosion in the goaf being the mechanism by which an explosive concentration of methane was expelled on to the longwall face.
   2. The relative likelihood of the ignition source being frictional ignition, electrical fault, static electricity or PUR induced heating/spontaneous combustion.
5. What the evidence establishes about the following matters prior to 6 May 2020, and whether they may have contributed to the occurrence of the serious accident:
   1. Whether the pre-drainage of gas from seams proximate to the GMS was conducted adequately.
   2. Whether a reliance on post-drainage rather than pre-drainage contributed to the difficulties in managing tailgate gas emissions and high oxygen levels within the goaf.
   3. Whether post-drainage of gas from the goaf was managed appropriately. In particular, whether the goaf drainage system was drawing gas out of the goaf at such a rate as to cause the ingress of oxygen.
   4. Whether the risk of spontaneous combustion posed by the density of the goaf drainage wells was addressed, sufficiently or at all.
   5. Whether the gas monitoring regime, including the spontaneous combustion TARPs, was adequate and, if it was, whether sufficient samples were being taken and analysed and whether the samples were being taken at the appropriate locations.
   6. Whether the mine’s ventilation system, which involved a downcast fan at the rear of the goaf, may have led to the leakage of air past the goaf seals and otherwise contributed to the ingress of oxygen to the goaf.
   7. Whether the risk of spontaneous combustion caused by the exothermic reaction associated with the use of polyurethane resin was properly considered and addressed.
   8. Whether the ventilation arrangement in the longwall tailgate was causing leakage through to the C heading resulting in additional oxygen in the goaf.
   9. Whether the throw and width of the Fooey fault and the presence of the MP sandstone as a massive unit with spanning potential in the inbye end of longwall 104 were given sufficient attention in the planning of the longwall panel, including whether the panel ought to have been commenced in the location where it was in the first place.
   10. Whether the hazard of windblast (caused other than by first goafing) ought to have been the subject of a separate risk assessment and hazard management plan.
   11. Whether the operational practices and management systems in existence at Grosvenor mine, or at higher corporate levels, were apt to adequately respond to the mine’s understanding of the difficulties it was having with longwall 104.
6. The measures which ought to be considered or investigated for the purpose of avoiding a similar serious accident occurring at an underground coal mine in the future.
7. The merits of proactive inertisation by direct injection into the active goaf as a means of reducing the risk of spontaneous combustion and methane explosion.
8. Whether the advantages and disadvantages of labour hire arrangements at Grosvenor mine are different to the advantages and disadvantages of the labour hire arrangements at Moranbah North, Grasstree and Oaky North mines and, if so, how.

Your written submissions to the Board on any issue are to be concise, referencing relevant evidence, and set out suggested findings and recommendations, having regard to the Terms of Reference.

These submissions are to be provided to the Board no later than 5pm on Wednesday 14 April by email to board@coalminesinquiry.qld.gov.au.

Here is some further information in response to your questions below.

Practice Guideline No. 1 which is on the Board of Inquiry website provides some guidance re submissions: https://coalminesinquiry.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/practice-guideline-no1.3-20201120.pdf. – Part F deals with publication and confidentiality.

Regarding making a submission, I’d suggest that you also refer the Document Management Protocol which is also available on the website: https://coalminesinquiry.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/document-management-protocol-v2-20201120.pdf. Submissions are to be in accordance with the Document Management Protocol.

If you make a submission, full consideration of the submission will be made by the Board. The submission may be published in whole or in part on the website (or not at all) – this is at the discretion of the Board. As per Practice Guideline No.1 , you can apply for confidentiality in relation to the whole or in part of the material.

If a submission is referenced in the Report then it will be footnoted, and the submission may be published in full or in part on the website (refer to the Document Library to see the excerpts of submissions referenced in Part 1 of the Report).

In terms of official feedback, we will acknowledge receipt of all submissions, and public submissions will be listed in the published Report.