2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2161807A

Resources and Energy Sector Infrastructure Council VOLUME 2 VOLUME

2011 RESOURCES AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND STUDY 2161807A

NOVEMBER 2011 APPENDICES ©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited [2011]. Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of Parsons Brinckerhoff. The contents of this document are for general information only and are not intended as professional advice. The Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA (and the Government of South Australia) and Parsons Brinckerhoff make no representation, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this document or as to the suitability of the said information for any particular purpose. Use of or reliance upon the information contained in this document is at the sole risk of the user in all things. The Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA (and the Government of South Australia) and Parsons Brinckerhoff undertake no duty and disclaim any responsibility for that use or reliance and any liability to the user. Author: N Flanagan, J Nottage, P Williams ......

Signed: ......

Reviewer: J Nottage, N Flanagan ......

Signed: ......

Approved by: N Flanagan ......

Signed: ......

Date: 28 November 2011 ......

Distribution: ......

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC 2011 RESOURCES AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND STUDY Contents

Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Main report Appendices Survey analysis data Appendix A Methodology Appendix B Gap analysis Appendix C Mind map Appendix D Communication summary Appendix E Companies list Appendix F PIRSA mining triangle Appendix G Projects by region and weighting Appendix H Survey questions Appendix I Weightings methodology Appendix J Textual responses from survey Appendix K Percent complete surveys Appendix L Maps Appendix M Scenario drivers Appendix N Seven workshop scenarios Appendix O Scenario workshop participants Appendix P Workshop output Appendix Q Communication summary with infrastructure companies

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC i

ii PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Appendix A Methodology

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Appendix B Gap analysis

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study – Gap Analysis

31 March 2011

Resources & Energy Sector Infrastructure Council

Revision Details Date Amended By 00 Original 11 March 2011 P Williams 01 Final Draft 14 March 2011 J Nottage, P Williams 02 Final 31 March 2011 P. Williams

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (PB) [2011]. Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information. Author: ......

Signed: ......

Reviewer: ......

Signed: ......

Approved by: ......

Signed: ......

Date: ......

Distribution: ......

Please note that when viewed electronically this document may contain pages that have been intentionally left blank. These blank pages may occur because in consideration of the environment and for your convenience, this document has been set up so that it can be printed correctly in double-sided format.

20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX 2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study

Contents

Page number

1. Introduction ii

1.1 Background ii

2. Process 1

3. Survey Questions 3

3.1 Scenario Analysis 4

4. Spatial and non-spatial data handling 6

4.1 Data collection and integrity 6 4.2 Planning and design of the data storage 6 4.3 Use of spatial data for decision making 7 4.4 Availability of the data through an interactive internet mapping portal (SARIG) 7 4.5 Procedures for ensuring repeatability and automation of the survey ongoing 7

5. Stakeholder Consultation 8

6. Conclusion 9

List of tables Page number

Appendices

Appendix A 2011 Suurvey Questions (refer to attached excel file) Appendix B Mind Map

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page i

2011 Resources and Energy Inffrastructure Demand Study

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

RESIC have engaged Parsons Brinkerhoff to undertake the Resources and Energy Innfrastructure Demand Study (2011) to identify infrastructure gaps and solutions, with a view of developing strategic recommendations that are endorsed by both the private and public sector stakeholders.

Key outcomes of the study are to:

Identify common needs for future infrastructure over several timeframes to beyoond 2020

Identify investment opportunities, including potential commercial structures for those opportunities, and/or barriers to growth

Identify appropriate government involvement on infrastructure development issuues to support industry growth

Recommend future “footprint” for each infrastructure sector, agreed and endorsed by stakeholders

Develop a process for ensuring demand daata is regularly captured, updated and monitored for ongoing analysis

Provide spatial representation of data collected (mapping) to enable delivery viaa the internet (SARIG)

The assignment requires engagement and consultation with industry to develop recoommendations on which infrastructure types should be developed that will bring the greatest benefit to tthe state. The information collation will be predominantly through the development and rollout of a demand survey for up to 100 companies involved in the energy and resources sectors in and bordering the state, with a high likelihood of investment and consequence for the state.

In 2009 a demand study was conducted, followed by a current state study on existing infrastructure and other pieces of analysis work. In 2011, an enhanced and improved study was commissioned (this study) to meet the objectives listed above.

This brief document is the gap analysis deliverable that highlights the key differences between the current (2011) and past (2009) infrastructure demand survey. It covers three key areas:

Process

Survey Questions

Spatial and non-spatial data handling

Page ii 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX PAARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

2. Process

The process undertaken for this survey is different in a number of ways to the past survey. The stakeholder involvement, the level of stakeholder consultation and the way in which the survey will be tested and rolled out are key differentiators to the previous survey.

PB has sought to have the survey questions and intent reviewed by PB internal specialists, State Government Departments and Corporatised Government agencies. The level of consultation has also been increased to create support and buy in such that the results will be used and seen as valuable. The key components relating to enhancement of the process include:

The survey development process

PB specialist reviewed and provided input to all areas of the survey from a domain and client base knowledge perspective

All infrastructure clients (see mind map – Appendix B) have been consulted and provided input into the survey content and input1

The survey approach

The process of conducting the survey is as follows:

After review by PB and Infrastructure firms, the outcome and expectations will be shared with RESIC for comment and feedback

The survey will be pilot tested by a small number of participants to validate assumptions and system test the survey

PB will conduct a briefing session for all participants over 2 sessions

PB will then release the survey and conduct consultation as per the Communications Plan.

The survey has been developed such that there are questions to assist in proactively seeking updates to the information. However, PB has not come to a conclusion as to whether annual or ‘as required’ updates should be imposed – see section 4 for more comments on this area.

The survey has also been designed for repeatability, that is, little use of dated information, descriptions, language, etc.

Survey assistance and completion

All respondents will be requested to fill out the electronic survey for ease of repeatability and reinforce sustainable practices – key stakeholders will have more detailed feedback sessions

A Q&A process will be created (email) to assist with queries and troubleshooting

Post survey

1 PB is yet to interview Adelaide Airports, AEMO and DTEI. PB understands from DTEI that they are to receive DTEI’s comments through the reference group review process. If this does not occur, PB will approach DTEI separately.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page 1

2011 Resources and Energy Inffrastructure Demand Study

The 2011 survey includes a scenario analysis workshop to analysis and propose infrastructure needs and/or potential recommendations with respect to infrastructure

Scenario planning – the survey has questioons that allow for the inclusion of weightings and to investigate the ‘hot spots’ for infrastructure ddemand

Applies technical rigour by brainstorming solutions to highlight infrastructure issues and possible options.

The previous survey focused on approximately 30 companies. As such, this survey has a much broader representation, including the energy companies,, smaller mining organisations and has consulted wider with industry to support the best possible data collection.

Page 2 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX PAARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

3. Survey Questions

The original survey focused very much on static broad based information collation, providing a more general / high level set of infrastructure demand information for the state. Hence, this imposed certain limitations on data use and conclusions made. As a result, the number and depth of assumptions that could be made from the survey was higher than the current survey.

The 2011 survey, although of greater length at this stage, is focused towards achieving a greater understanding of planned infrastructure, and also the thinking that lies behind the information disclosed or the intent of the organisations.

A key fundamental difference between the survey questions for 2009 and 2011 is that the current survey is more qualitative with respects to data collection and aims to reduce the level of gross assumptions that could be inferred by the responses. This is further explained below.

The survey has a greater focus on defining qualitative aspects of the proposed infrastructure, For example, this could include questions that prompt for the reasons for choosing certain energy options, or providing the likelihood of information changing in the immediate future.

The survey also attempts to reduce the number of gross assumptions, for example why information was not completed. That is, was this because information was not available, was it left blank by mistake, was it left blank due to confidentiality issues, was the organisation unable to answer based on the suggested answers? The survey now tries to prompt for the reasoning associated with the answer. This type of information provides greater clarity on the likelihood and consequence of investments and again improves any analysis conducted on the data set.

The 2009 survey was primarily focused on mineral organisations. The 2011 survey has been enhanced to better accommodate for energy organisations. Although, given the nature of mining, the survey still has a strong mining context.

By a quick comparison, the two surveys compare as disclosed in the table below.

Criteria 2009 Survey 2011 Survey

Number of questions 36 100

Qualitative questions 0 ~30 of the 100

Airports No Yes

Commercial arrangement No Yes questions

Additional relevant Energy No Yes sector questions

Port facilities Limited Extended

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page 3

2011 Resources and Energy Inffrastructure Demand Study

Although the number of questions are twice as high as before (at this stage – this is likely to be revised down), some questions may not need to be answered (not applicable), and most are still relatively simple to answer.

The basic premise of the survey remains the same in that it is to be completed for eaach project; captures information over four (4) timeframes, and in many cases the survey uses ranges (although refined and tested) to gather information more efficiently.

The following describe the key differences that thhe survey focuses on for the various subject matter areas:

The Project information has been enhanced to include project status, size of resource, level of external support utilised and includes general question refinement to better align with energy organisations and reduce project assumptions.

Electricity (renamed from Power) now includes peak demand for greater asset clarity, reasoning for grid or self generation options and generation types. The survey also asks the coompany to clarify the sourcee and location of off site electricity generation.

Water includes location of source, and improved definition of the type of water needs. It also prompts for water quality required.

Like electricity, gas also now prompts for the reasoning of mains connection vs other sources.

Transport overall has a much more ‘supply chain’ approach to the questions inclluding,

confirming the reasoning for the transport strategy,

start and end points for most areas (including road, rail and port), including location for important areas such as sidings,

better clarity around the type and volumes of vehicles and vessels anticipatted,

whether infrastructure used will be public or private

storing of product at port and infrastructure requirements for loading

The conclusion of the survey also now contains questions on infrastructure development partnering and any commercial structuring that have already been put in place, or plan to be in place.

The key outcome the enhanced survey aims to achieve is to provide an improved bassis for analysis and understandiing of the information to best support policy recommendations.

Page 4 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX PAARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

3.1 Scenario Analysis

Detailed analysis, and in particulars, scenario options / planning was not completed as part of the 2009 survey.

The 2011 survey includes a thorough review and analysis of the information received. As such, PB will conduct a scenario analysis workshop to develop projections of the information provided and establish credible recommendations for RESIC.

The workshop will include a number of participants from industry, Government and relevant organisations (yet to be defined). The workshop aims to test the criteria and options developed, assumptions, theories and provide input to or recommend opportunities for the state.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page 5

2011 Resources and Energy Inffrastructure Demand Study

4. Spatial and non-spatial data handling

The finalised data outcome within SARIG is unfolding and will become clearer over the next few weeks. However, the key areas that have been identified as containing the greatest departurre and improvement from the previous study are categorised under the following headings;

Data collection (survey) rules and integrity,

Planning and design of the data storage (database design) methodology,

Use of spatial data and spatial technology to assist strategic decision making,

The ability to interrogate the spatial (and therefore non-spatial data) through an interactive internet mapping portal (SARIG), and

Recommendations and procedures for achiieving the desired outcome of longevvity of the survey, and processes for automating spatial and non-sspatial data update on-going.

These key areas are expanded below -

4.1 Data collection and integrity

From an integrity and data collection/manipulation exercise, the following are expected for the 2011 survey

Much of the information entry will be through the use of drop down menus or radio buttons to reduce data integrity issues,

Some questions will be mandatory, particularly those relating to enquiring as to why the survey cannot be completed in full, and

The dynamic nature of the survey is yet to be tested, so bypassing redundant questions, etc are yet to be clarified.

Other key objectives will be to:

Ensure that data fields can be easily added /updated, and

Infrastructure data will be provided via the innternet using the SARIG system

PB will be working collaboratively with the PIRSA SIS team to ensure our survey data and representation of the data can be delivered and presented to the companies and infrastructure organisations

4.2 Planning and design of the data storage

PB will undertake database design and import procedures that are intended to streamline the data collection process. Import procedures will be documented that provide a robust mmethodology for extracting the information gathered by the online survey tool (SurveyMonkey) intto a specifically designed database customised for this study. This will assist in providing long term efficiency gains when this survey is undertaken on a regular basis in the future.

Page 6 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX PAARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

4.3 Use of spatial data for decision making

The 2011 study will be leveraging the power of spatial technology to assist in analysing of the data in the scenario planning workshop. Being able to access this technology to a greater extent in this study will provide tangible benefits to the strategic decision making process and will assist in producing more robust recommendations as part of the final reporting deliverable.

4.4 Availability of the data through an interactive internet mapping portal (SARIG)

The intention of this study is to allow public access to all, or an aggregation of, the spatial and therefore non-spatial data through the SARIG portal.

4.5 Procedures for ensuring repeatability and automation of the survey ongoing

This study will be developing recommendations for procedures and methodologies for ensuring ease of repeatability of the survey for future iterations of data gathering. These recommendations are envisaged to leverage the available internet enabled technology (spatial and non-spatial) within PIRSA to ensure maximum functionality and opportunity for wide dissemination.

This study will also be offering recommendations on procedures for automation of the spatial data creation and integration into the internet mapping portal (SARIG). This will help to integrate this process into more of a component of the standard business system process for PIRSA and will therefore provide real value for this process ongoing. The two key areas this is envisaged to entail are:

Delineation of a standardised process for re-surveying the respondents, at this point identified as once per year, and

Integration of the survey into PIRSA’s process for engaging with a new mining or energy client seeking exploration or other similar approvals.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page 7

2011 Resources and Energy Inffrastructure Demand Study

5. Stakeholder Consultation

As mentioned in this document, consultation is occurring at many levels throughout thhis assignment, including RESIC at the engagement kickoff through to ongoing consultation with key survey stakeholders.

The 2011 survey has an extensive consultation pprogram to ensure that the best and most appropriate questions are being asked to support high valuee analysis leading to robust recommenndations.

PB has and intends to consult industry, Government, survey participants and other influential stakeholders. PB has developed a separate communications plan to drive consultation related to the stakeholders in Appendix B.

As part of the process to date, PB has consulted with ARTC, Genesee & Wyoming, ElectraNet, ETSA, SA Water, EPIC and Flinders Ports on the survey content and process. PB has also conssulted widely within PIRSA.

PB is currently assisting RESIC and creating additional support and awareness of the survey through Infrastructure conferences and media, for example SACOME and the BRW.

PB will continue to work with stakeholders, as highlighted in our communication plan to support data collection success and ongoing information update.

Page 8 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX PAARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

6. Conclusion

In conclusion the primary enhancements / changes to the current survey include: Rigorous review and focused questions to highlight what, when, where and the current thinking/strategy supporting planned infrastructure

An increased level of consultation and testing of the survey prior to release so that PB has the confidence it will be completed to the organisations’ best ability

Wider sector penetration to get a fuller picture of the plans for Energy and Resources companies

Improved repeatability for complimentary surveys to be completed

Questions that focus not only on what is planned, but insights into what thinking and ideology has been adopted to date

A survey tool that is more dynamic

Utilisation of spatial technology in the management, analysis and dissemination of information

Strong approach to the scenario planning exercise

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 20110401_REIDS_GAP_ANALYSIS_FINAL.DOCX Page 9

Appendix C Mind map

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

SAFC Telstra Optus AGEA Reference Group Vodaphone Telecommunication Council NBN Print Media BG Roundtable AusImm RESIC (CLIENT) Road DTEI Economic Mineral Councils Development Board Australia ARTC Rail Genesee & DTEI SACOME Industry bodies Wyoming

State Departments Infrastructure DTED Companies Electricity Electranet (TNSP) ETSA (DNSP) PIRSA SA Water Water Councils Premiers Dept Government Gas EPIC Infrastructure Resources and Australia Energy Demand Ports Authority Flinders Ports Study (PB) Adelaide Airport Ltd AEMO Regional Development Boards SAREIC Companies Industry Events Minerals Uranium Conference Conferences LNG and UG Industry Clusters Regional Mining

Eyre Peninsula Renewable Energy Mining Alliance

Oil Musgrave Province

Appendix D Communication summary

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Infrastructure Communications Summary

Infrastructure Company Infrastructure Meeting day/time Meeting Location Attendees Outcome Category ElectraNet electricity Friday 11 March 2011 - 11.30am - ElectraNet Justin Nottage (PB), Paul Williams (PB), John Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. 12.30am Haddow (ElectraNet - Network Strategy Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted Manager), Nathan Potter (ElectraNet - Network existing questions, added new questions and removed Customer Manager), Hugo Klingenberg questions. Key outcome was an indication from ElectraNet (ElectraNet - Senior Manager Network on the value they saw in the study and their keenness to Development) access the information to assist in their planning going forward. ElectraNet also saw great value in having this information updated on a regular basis going forward.

ETSA electricity Thursday 24 March 2011 - 10.30am - ETSA Justin Nottage (PB), David Pritchard (ETSA - Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. 11.30am Manager Network Planning) Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. Indicated overall support for the project but reiterated that he had seen numerous surveys in the past and was keen to see this survey taken forward and kept relevant. Flinders Ports transport - ports Monday 28 February 2011 - 4pm - PB Nick Flanagan (PB), Justin Nottage (PB), Sean Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. 5pm Reardon (Flinders Ports - General Manager Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted Infrastructure) existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. Was very supportive of the project and in particular the ability for the SARIG system to provide a mechanism for (predominately) mining companies to understand the capacity of the existing ports early on in their feasibility process, rather than coming to Flinders Ports late in the process with an incorrect understanding of the capacity and capability of the ports they intent to use.

South Australian Freight ports, rail, road, Friday 15 April 2011 - 8.30am - PB Justin Nottage (PB), Neil Murphy (SAFC - CEO) Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. Council (SAFC) airports 9.30am Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. Provided holistic advice on ports, road, rail and airport survey questions. SA Water water Monday 28 March 2011 - 12.30pm - SA Water Justin Nottage (PB), Kym Wallent (SA Water - Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. 1.30pm Manager Asset Management) Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. Kym indicated he supported the survey but was also keen for the outcomes to be translated into tangible results. Epic Energy gas Friday 4 March 2011 - 1pm - 2pm Epic Energy Nick Flanagan (PB), Justin Nottage (PB), Peter Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. Sardelis (Epic Energy - Manager Business and Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted Asset Development) existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. AEMO electricity Monday 19 April 2011 - 1pm - 1.30pm phone and email Justin Nottage (PB), Craig Oakshott (AEMO - Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. Senior Manager Strategy and Economics) Emailed draft survey questions for Craig's review. No response received from Craig (left a voice message follow up). DTEI transport - roads various phone and email Justin Nottage (PB), Mark Elford (DTEI - Introduced the project, desired outcome and value to Director, Road Transport Policy & Planning), Paul Mark, Paul and Phil. Contacted Mark initially who Gelston (DTEI - Director - Major Projects), Phil recommended I contact Paul who recommended I contact Laws (DTEI - Networks Strategy manager - Phil. All three were explained the project and desired Road Transport Policy), Andy Milazzo (DTEI) outcome. I spent some initial time on the phone with Phil in regards to the survey questions, who indicated that as the survey questions were going through RESIC, he suspected that Andy would pass them through him anyway. Andy did return survey comments which were integrated into the survey. Genesee and Wyoming transport - rail Friday 4 March 2011 - 9am - 10am PB Nick Flanagan (PB), Justin Nottage (PB), Peter Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. Taylor (G&W - Business Development Manager) Stepped through draft survey questions and adjusted existing questions, added new questions and removed questions. Provided clarity over step change rail increments for haulage weights and vetted questions. ARTC transport - rail Friday 18 March 2011 - 1.30pm - ARTC Justin Nottage (PB), Nick Minnervini (ARTC - Introduced the project, desired outcome and value. 2.30pm Customer Development Manager), Derek Harris Stepped through draft survey. Further refined the (ARTC - Manager Infrastructure Strategy) questions that Genesee and Wyoming reviewed. Little change to the survey. Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Resources and Energy Company Communication Summary

Authority Entity Authority Type day/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome

Please see separate spreadsheet for summary of high and low impact resources and energy company list and engagement summary Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Industry Events Summary

Industry Event Event Category day/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome Infrastructure Australia - Leading the Infrastructure 12.00 - 2pm Wed 1 June 2011 The Lakes Resort Hotel - Brebne Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan general knowledge gathering. Further National Development of the T&L Industry Drive - West Lakes discussion with Neil Murphey (SAFC) re study

South Australian Mining and Energy Infrastructure 12-13 April 2011 Adelaide Convention Centre Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan, mention of study during addresses by Tom Infrastructure Conference mining and energy professionals Kousantonis and companies 3rd Annual SA Infrastructure conference Infrastructure 18 - 20 April 2011 Stamford Plaza Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan, mention of study during address by Premier infrastructure professionals, Mike Rann companies, mining companies SACOME: Energising SA with The Hon. Mining and Energy, 12 - 2pm Friday 11 February Adelaide Convention Centre - Hall G, Justin Nottage, mining and mention of study by SACOME CEO Jason Patrick Conlon Infrastructure 2011 North Terrace, Adelaide infrastructure professionals Kuchel during address

South Australian Resources and Energy Resources and Energy 2 - 4 May 2011 Hilton Hotel, Adelaide Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan, general networking about the study and value to Investment Conference Resources and Energy the industry. professional and company Representatives Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Industry Body Communication Summary

Industry Body Industry Body Type day/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome South Australian Chamber of Mines Resources and Energy 9 - 10am Friday 25 March 2011 SACOME Justin Nottage, Nick Discussion of the study and benefits to members. and Energy (SACOME) Flanagan, SACOME reps SACOME reiterated support for the study and discussed support for promotion of study through the monthly news letters and an industry briefing session to communicate the outcomes of the study.

South Australian Freight Council transport logistics 9am Friday 15 April 2011 PB Justin Nottage, Neil Murphey introduced the study and value of study to industry. (SAFC) (CEO SAFC) Reviewed the survey questions and offered feedback and suggested changes to some questions. Suggestions were integrated into survey.

Roundtable for unconventional gas unconventional gas and liquid fuels various PIRSA Justin Nottage, Nick alignment of work being done by the supply chain and liquid fuels in SA Flanagan, round table working group to the outcomes of the study. participates - energy, Integration of questions from roundtable into IDS academia, government study online survey Resources and Energy Sector Resources and Energy Friday 4 February 2011 PB Nick Flanagan, Justin Introduction of study, approach, methodology to Infrastructure Council (RESIC) Nottage, Paul Williams, RESIC. Open forum for discussion and feedback RESIC from RESIC on 'what success looks like'. Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Government Department Communication Summary

Government Entity day/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome Department for Transport and Energy (DTEI) multiple multiple Justin Nottage (PB), Mark Elford Introduced the project, desired outcome and value to Mark, Paul (DTEI - Director, Road Transport and Phil. Contacted Mark initially who recommended I contact Policy & Planning), Paul Gelston Paul who recommended I contact Phil. All three were explained (DTEI - Director - Major Projects), the project and desired outcome. I spent some initial time on the Phil Laws (DTEI - Networks Strategy phone with Phil in regards to the survey questions, who indicated manager - Road Transport Policy), that as the survey questions were going through RESIC, the he Andy Milazzo (DTEI) suspected that Andy would pass them through him anyway. Andy did return survey comments which were integrated into the survey. Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) Department of Primary Industries and multiple PIRSA/PB Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan, General engagement with key teams within PIRSA at various Resources of South Australia (PIRSA) Mehrnoush Ghorbani (PB), PIRSA levels to ensure alignment and engagement of key outcomes, GIS team, Barry Goldstein, Belinda both strategic and technical. Hayter, Michael Jarosz, Martin Reid,

Department of the Premier and Cabinet The Economic Development Board Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Infrastructure

Regional Development Australia April 2011 TBA Nick Flanagan, Joe Mastrangelo presentation to the RDA representatives on the purpose of the study and desired outcomes. Enthusiastic response from RDA members present. Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Authorities Communication Summary

Authority Entity Authority Typeday/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome Infrastructure Australia (IA) Infrastructure TBA TBA TBA TBA Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Electricity Networks and Generation Monday 19 April 2011 - 1pm - phone Justin Nottage (PB), Craig Oakshott Introduced the project, desired 1.30pm (AEMO - Senior Manager Strategy outcome and value. Emailed draft and Economics) survey questions for Craig's review. No response received from Craig (left a voice message follow up). Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Company Clusters Communication Summary

Cluster Entity Cluster Representation day/time Location Attendees/audience Outcome Eyre Peninsula Mining Alliance Minotaur Exploration, Iron Road, multiple PB, conferences Justin Nottage, Nick Flanagan, liaison with Stephen to discuss the (EPMA) Lincoln Minerals and Centrex Stephen Marlow study direction, methodology and Metals. desired outcome. Stephen also reviewed the survey questions and provided feedback which was incorporated into the survey questions.

Musgrave Province Mining Alliance TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study 2011 Media Communication Summary

Media Name Media Type Media format publication date Outcome Distribution Business Review Weekly (BRW magazine) weekly business magazine print and online 7 April 2011 page 45 on general news. Poorly written article National despite significant amount of information provided to journalist The Advertiser daily newspaper (business section) print and online 10 May 2011 page 33 - 34 b business section. Front of business South Australia section headline article. Well written article.

SACOME Journal and e news industry body print and online monthly Monthly updates provided by PB and PIRSA on the South Australia study.

Appendix E Companies list

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Altona Energy Dominion Mining Linc Energy PlatSearch NL farm in Silver City Minerals Ltd Adelaide Energy Doray Minerals Ltd Lincoln Minerals President Petroleum Adelaide Resources Energy Exploration Limited LNG Limited Protavia Ahave Energy Pty Ltd Energy World Corporation Lymex Limited Reedy Lagoon Corporation Alinta Energy Group EXCO Resources NL, Polymetals Group Lynch Mining Rex Minerals Apollo Minerals Ltd Eyre Energy Maosen Australia Rodina Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd Arafura Flinders Exploration Marathon Resources Royal Resources Archer Exploration Geodynamics Marmota Energy Ltd Santos Argo Exploration Giralia Resources Maximus Resources Southern Gold Limited Argonaut Resources Gunson Resources Metals X Stellar Resources Australian Zircon NL Havilah Resources Minotaur Exploration Stuart Petroleum Beach Energy Heathgate Resources Mithril Resources Syngas BHP Billiton Helix Resources Monax Mining Tasman Resources BP Exploration Limited Hillgrove Resources OneSteel Whyalla TC Development Corporation Pty Ltd Carpentaria Exploration Hybrid Energy/Strike Energy OZ Minerals Teck Australia, PlatSearch NL, Eaglehawk Cauldron Energy Icon Energy Panax Terramin Australia Centrex Metals Iluka Resources Pepinnini Minerals Ltd Trafford Resources Crescent Gold Limited IMX Resources Perilya Uranium One Curnamona Energy/Havilah Resources Investigator Resource Ltd Petratherm Uranium SA Delta Gold Iron Road Phoenix Copper Western Plains Resources Diatreme Resources Ltd IronClad Resources Ltd Pirie Resources/Archer Exploration

Appendix F PIRSA mining triangle

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

South Australia’s Mining Pipeline South Australia’sJanuary Mining 2011 Pipeline July 2011

MAJOR MINES 1. #Olympic Dam (Cu-U-Au-Ag) 2. #*Challenger (Au)

3. Beverley (U3O8) 4. #Middleback Ranges (Iron Ore) 5. Leigh Creek (Coal) 6. *Malu (Prominent Hill Open Cut) (Cu-Au) 7. *Angas (Pb-Zn)

8. *Honeymoon (U3O8) 9. Jacinth-Ambrosia (HM) 10. Beltana (Zn) 11. White Dam (Au)

12. Cairn Hill (Fe3O4) 13. Iron Chieftain (Iron Ore) 14. Ankata (Prominent Hill Underground) (Cu-Au) 15. Kanmantoo (Cu,Au, Ag)

16. Beverley North (U3O8) 17. Peculiar Knob (Fe2O3)

# * PACE Co-funded Mine expansion

PROJECTS

*Arckaringa (CTL) Mt Gee (U3O8) Bramfield (Fe2O3) *Mullaquana (U3O8)

Beverley South (U3O8) Mutooroo (Cu-Co) *Bird-in-Hand (Au) Mutooroo (Fe2O3) *Carrapateena(Cu-Au) Oban (U3O8) Clinton (CTL) Olympic Dam Expansion (Cu-U-Au-Ag)

Crocker Well (U3O8) Poochera (Kaolin) Flinders-Reliance (Zn) *Portia (Au)

*Four-Mile (U3O8) Project Magnet Phase 2 (Fe2O3) FuturGas (CTL) Razorback (Fe3O4)

Gum Flat (Fe2O3) Tripitaka (HM) Hawks Nest (Fe2O3) *Tunkillia (Au, Ag) Hillside (Cu, Au) Warramboo (Fe3O4) *Kalkaroo (Cu-Au-Mo) Wilcherry Hill (Fe3O4) *Menninnie Dam (Pb-Zn-Ag) *Wilgerup (Fe2O3)

* PACE Co-funded

PROSPECTS

Acropolis (Cu-U-Au-Ag) Eurelia (Diamonds) *Moonta (Cu) Sequoia (Fe, U3O8) *Alvey (Pt, Pd) Eurinilla Dome (Cu, Au) Moorilyanna (Cu) Sheoak (Au, Ag) Atacama (HM) Flinders Island (Diamond) Mount Brady (Fe, Cu, REE) Shylock (Cu, Au)

*Aphrodite (U3O8) Giffen Well (Fe2O3) Mount Cora (Fe) Skye (Au, Ag) Aristotle (Zn) Glenrae (Iocg) Mount Davies (Ni) Snaefell (Fe)

Armchair (U3O8) Golf Bore (Au) *Mount Woods (IOCGU) Springfield (Diamond)

Aroona 2 (Zn, Pb) Goulds Dam (U3O8) *Mount Caroline (Ni, Cu, Pt, Pd) *Sturt (IOCGU)

*Baggy Green (Au) Greenpatch (Fe3O4) Mount Christie Siding (Cr2O3) Taurus (Pt, Pd, Cu)

Bagot Well (Cu) *Hercules (Fe3O4) Mount Distance (U3O8) Telephone Dam (Pb, Zn) Bald Hill Iron (Fe) Hicks Hill (Fe) *Mount Gunson (Cu, Co) *Titan (Cu, Au) *Barns (Au) Jamieson Tank (Mn) Mount Torrens (Cu-U-Au-Ag) Tomahawk/Tunkillia area 191 (Au)

*Barton West (HM) Junction Dam (U3O8) Mulyungarie (U3O8) Toondulya (Cu, Au)

Becaroo (U3O8, REE) *Jungle Dam (Ag, Au, Fe) Mutooroo Iron (Fe) Torrens South JV (Cu, Au)

Big Lake 20 (U3O8) *Kangaroo Dam (Pt, Pd, Au) Netherleigh Park (Cu) Typhoon (HM)

Big Lake 28 (U3O8) Kenmore Ii (Ni, Cu) *Netley Hill (Cu, Mo) Typhoon (Au)

*Black Hills (Au) Kopi (Fe) North Kalkaroo (Cu, Au) Ultima Dam (Au, U3O8)

Blanchewater (U3O8) Lady Jane (Au) North Portia (Cu, Au) Victory (U3O8, REE)

Blinman (Cu) Lilydale (Fe) Notrab (HM) *Vulcan (Cu, Au, U3O8) *Blue Rose (Cu, Au) Lock (Coal) *Oakdale (Zn, Cu) Weednanna (Pb, Zn, Ag, Cu, Au)

Bungalow (Fe3O4) Mainwood (Au) Parara (IOCGU) Wheal Ellen (Zn, Pb, Ag) Burra (Cu) Malache (Zn, Pb) *Parkinson Dam (Ag, Zn, Cu, Au) Willamulka (Cu, Au) Carrow (Fe) Maldorky (Fe) Pindari (Ni, Cr) Willy Willy (HM) *Claude Hills (Ni) Melton (Cu, Au) Pollinga (Mn) Winjabbie East (Cu, REE)

*Coolybring (Fe3O4) Minbrie (Fe) Princess Royal (Cu) Wirrda (Cu, Au)

Deloraine (Au) Miranda (Cu) *Prospect Hill (Sn) * Yadglin (U3O8)

*Dromedary (HM) Mojave (HM) *Pundinya (U3O8) Yanyarrie (Ba)

*Emmie Bluff (Cu) *Mongolata (Au) Punt Hill (Cu, Au) Yarramba (U3O8)

Emmie North (Cu) Monsoon (Au) Radium Hill (U3O8, Th, Ra) Zeus (Cu, Ni)

Prospects Projects MAJOR MINES Anomalous drillhole intersections, and/or JORC Resource. Possibly undertaking or have Operating or under construction. geochemistry and geophysics. completed feasibility studies. Possibly progressing through final mine approvals stage.

204155-001

Appendix G Projects by region and weighting

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

project by region

Organisation Name Project Name Region Weighted/unweighted Hillgrove Resources Limited Kanmantoo Copper Gold Mine Adelaide Hills Weighted Arafura Resources Limited Nolans Project Whyalla Rare Earths Complex Eyre Peninsula Weighted Beach Energy LNG Plant Eyre Peninsula Unweighted Centrex Metals Limited Bungalow Magnetite Mine Eyre Peninsula Weighted Centrex Metals Limited Centrex Sheep Hill Port Eyre Peninsula Weighted Centrex Metals Limited Eyre Iron Magnetite project ( Carrow and Kopio areas ) Eyre Peninsula Weighted Centrex Metals Limited Wilgerup Hematite Mine Eyre Peninsula Weighted Iluka Resources Ltd Jacinth Ambrosia Expansion Eyre Peninsula Unweighted Iluka Resources Ltd Tripitaka Eyre Peninsula Weighted Iron Road Limited Central Eyre Iron Project Eyre Peninsula Weighted IronClad Mining Whilcherry Hill Iron Ore Project Eyre Peninsula Weighted Lincoln Minerals Limited Gum Flat Iron Ore Eyre Peninsula Weighted Minotaur Exploration Ltd Poochera Kaolin Project Eyre Peninsula Unweighted OneSteel Haematite extension Eyre Peninsula Weighted OneSteel Magnetite extension Eyre Peninsula Weighted UraniumSA Mullaquana Project Eyre Peninsula Unweighted BP Australia Pty Ltd Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Project Great Australian Bight Unweighted Panax Geothermal Penola South East Unweighted Protavia Pty Ltd South australian Pulp Project South East Weighted Strike Energy Ltd Kingston Project (formally known as FuturGas) South East Unweighted Ahava Energy Ahava Energy Upper North Unweighted Altona Energy Arckaringa CTL and Power Project Upper North Weighted Beach Energy Innamincka Gas Plant Upper North Unweighted BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Project Upper North Weighted Geodynamics Limited Geodynamics Cooper Basin Geothermal Upper North Unweighted Gunson Resources Limited Mount Gunson Upper North Weighted Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd Beverley North Extension Upper North Unweighted IMX Resources Sbaefell Upper North Unweighted Metals X Limited Wingellina Nickel Project Upper North Weighted OZ Minerals Carrapateena Upper North Unweighted Petratherm Limited Paralana Upper North Unweighted Santos Ltd Cooper Gas Growth Upper North Weighted Carpentaria Exploration Pty Ltd Hawsons Iron Ore Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Weighted Carpentaria Exploration Pty Ltd McDougal Iron Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Unweighted Flinders Exploration Limited Copper Claim Yorke Pen/Braemar Unweighted Minotaur Exploration Ltd Mutooroo Magnetite Yorke Pen/Braemar Unweighted PepinNini Minerals Limited Crocker Well Uranium Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Weighted PepinNini Minerals Limited Mt Victor Magnetite Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Unweighted Rex Minerals Ltd Hillside Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Unweighted Royal Resources Limited Razorback Iron Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Weighted Syngas Limited Bio-Power project Yorke Peninsula Yorke Pen/Braemar Weighted Syngas Limited Clinton Coal to Liquid Project Yorke Pen/Braemar Weighted

Page 1

Appendix H Survey questions

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

Introduction

The intention of this survey is to understand your planned infrastructure demands over four future timeframes providing details into the scale, timing and composition of planned infrastructure demands. This information will be used for assisting government to make informed infrastructure planning decisions. If you are unable to answer questions, please indicate why to improve our understanding of your response. 'Planned infrastructure' refers to new developments or augmentation plans relating to future investment in an around South Australia. If you have a project outside South Australia, but will have an impact on South Australia infrastructure such as road, rail, water, etc., please fill out a survey for that project. Your response should reflect the impact of that investment or additional impact if you have operations already in the area. The survey will walk your through your investment type and the needs associated with water, energy and transportation requirements (sections). For some respondents, questions may not be applicable. Please ensure you note this if you have left answers blank for this reason at the end of each section. For some respondents, product will not be transported using vehicle, vessel or aircraft means. For example, pipelines, conveyors, slurry pipes, etc, may be used to transport goods. Please state this as required in this section and mark the other sections as appropriate. PLEASE FILL OUT ONE SURVEY PER INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. We understand that projects may be linked or components bundled together, for example many mine sites using shared infrastructure. Respond to the survey such that you are answering questions for a specific/unique project and its attributes, such that no double counting with other projects would occur. Please note that the information gathered through this process will be used for analysis and spatial data sharing through PIRSA's SARIG website. The raw data supplied in this survey will not be distributed to any party. If you have concerns regarding confidentiality, please feel free to contact us – your participation is crucial. Completing this survey with the most accurate information possible is vital to ensure that robust recommendations are developed. Please note that K = thousands

1. What is your Organisation Name? required

2. Contact Person required

Please note that the email address entered here will be sent a user ID code which will be required to continue with the survey. If you do not receive the email please check whether your email management system may have blocked the email.

Title/role

First name

Surname

Phone Number

Email Address

3. Please specify the number of new or augmented projects that your required organisation is likely to develop over the next 10 - 15 years

Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 3

1. Future Capital Plan

1. What is the name/reference for the project? required

2. Please provide the most accurate location information for your project required (easting/northing OR nearest township OR distance and direction from township)

3. What year do you envisage your operation to commence (commissioning of required plant or extraction of the resource)?

Comments

4. What is the current status of the project? required

5. Have you engaged any external support (such as specialists consultants) to reach the status mentioned in Question 5 above?

6. Please provide the expected life of the operation required

7. Please identify the amount of resources type(s) (using appropriate units) to be required extracted in each of the four time periods (If other please provide) 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years Comment

Copper

Gold

Silver

Hematite

Zinc

magnetite

Uranium

Mineral Sands

Coal

Geothermal

Oil

Natural gas

LNG

Unconventional Gas

Underground coal gasification

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 3

Mined coal as feedstock for syngas

Frontier conventional gas plays

Shale gas

Coal seam gas

Low permeability reservoir gas

Other (Please specify)

8. Please advise the type of output (of your primary resource if more than one) from the operation

Ore

Concentrate (partly processed)

Processed Raw product

Refined fuel

N/A

9. If applicable, please advise of the processing location (of your primary resource if more than one)

At mine / source

Overseas

Interstate

South Australia (existing)

South Australia (new)

N/A

10. Please elaborate on the anticipated staffing logistics for the project over life of the operations.

on site staff accommodation with community facilities / community development

on site staff accommodation only

fly in - fly out

other

11. Please advise the estimated ($A) capital investment that will occur during each of the four time periods 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

less than $10M

$10M - $50M

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 3 of 3

$50M - $100M

$100M - $250M

$250M - $500M

$500M - $1B

$1B - $2.5B

greater than $2.5B

12. Do you intend to transport most of your product through means, other than just road, rail, air or sea. If so, please state how and from where to where (eg slurry pipes)

13. What is the approximate % split of the capital investment for the following infrastructure:

Electricity

Water

Gas

Fuel (diesel storage, pipelines, etc)

Telecommunication

Road

Rail

Sea Port

Airport / strip

0 Total

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 3

2. Electricity Requirements

The following questions relate to your anticipated power needs where electricity is the input. Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 11 and 12 appropriately.

1. Please estimate your anticipated total peak load electricity requirements required across the four time periods below 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

0 MW

less than 5 MW

5 - 10 MW

10 - 15 MW

15 - 20 MW

20 - 25 MW

25 - 30 MW

30 - 40 MW

40 - 50 MW

50 - 100 MW

100 - 200 MW

200+ MW

2. Please estimate your anticipated annual electricity requirements across the four time periods below: 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

0 GWh

less than 20 GWh

20 - 40 GWh

40 - 60 GWh

60 - 80 GWh

80 - 100 GWh

100 - 120 GWh

120 - 180 GWh

180 - 220 GWh

220 - 500 GWh

500 - 900 GWh

900+ GWh

3. What percentage are you anticipating to source from the following options? Please indicate the location where applicable.

If more than 3 offsite generation plants are being considered, please add them in question 10.

0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years Location

Grid

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 3

Generation (onsite)

Generation (offsite) 1

Generation (offsite) 2

Generation (offsite) 3

4. If Generation, please stipulate the type of generation

5. If you selected non-renewable energy from the options above in question 4, would you consider renewable energy as an option?

yes

6. Please elaborate below on the reason(s) for selecting either yes or no relating to the use of renewable energy.

7. If you selected grid as your primary electricity source in question 3 above, please elaborate on your reasons why

Other

8. If you selected generation (either onsite or offsite) as your primary electricity source in question 3 above, please elaborate on your reasons why

Other

9. What seasonal or other variable demand, if any, is likely to exist with respect to electricity use?

Other and Peaks

10. Please indicate how much, if any, electricity you intend to export over the four time periods? 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

0 MW

less than 5 MW

5 - 10 MW

10 - 15 MW

15 - 20 MW

20 - 25 MW

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 3 of 3

25 - 30 MW

30 - 40 MW

40 - 50 MW

50 - 100 MW

100 - 200 MW

200+ MW

11. What is the likelihood of the electricity information that you provided in this survey changing over the next 6 months?

12. If you left questions unanswered, or you selected ‘highly likely’ for Q11, please advise of the reason (s) why?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

3. Water Requirements

The following questions relate to your anticipated water needs and sources. Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 5 and 6 appropriately.

1. Please estimate your annual water requirements over the four time periods (please include all phases of the project eg construction, execution, operation required etc). 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

0 ML

Less than 100ML

100 - 500 ML

500 - 1500 ML

1500ML +

2. Please advise of the anticipated water source(s), their percentage of use and location (if applicable) over the four time periods.

(please provide location information where applicable)

0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years Location

Mains

Recycled water

Rainwater

Bore Water (ground water)

Desalination (sea water)

Desalination (ground water)

3. Will water be stored, and if so where?

yes no

unsure

location if yes

4. What is your anticipated water quality requirement over the life of your project, and percentage thereof?

potable

non-potable

0 Total

5. What is the likelihood of the water information changing over the next 6 months?

6. If you left questions unanswered, or you selected ‘highly likely’ for Q5, please advise of the reason (s) why?

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

4. Gas Requirements

The following questions relate to your anticipated gas needs and sources, including if it is to be used for electricity generation. Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 4 and 5 appropriately.

1. Please estimate your daily gas pipeline capacity requirements for your new project 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

0 TJ

Less than 5 TJ

5 - 10 TJ

10 - 30 TJ

30 - 100 TJ

100 TJ +

2. Please advise of the anticipated gas source and the percentage of use over the four time periods 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years

Bullets

Pipelines

3. Please advise on the usage of gas on your project

power generation processing

other

If other, please specify

4. Which of the statement(s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required gas requirements?

Studies completed to date based on a full analysis of energy strategies, incorporating organisation drivers Based on self assessment of energy options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on organisation policies

Based on best guess

Based on pipeline capacity

Some questions were not answered as gas usage, at this stage, are unclear

All questions were not answered as gas options, at this stage, are unclear

Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project

Other

5. What is the likelihood of the gas information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

5. Fuel Requirements (Diesel)

The following questions relate to your anticipated fuel needs, logistics and storage (if applicable). Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 5 and 6 appropriately.

1. Please estimate your annual diesel fuel requirements in kL ('000 litres) over the four time periods below. 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years Comment

Diesel fuel in kL ('000 litres)

2. Please advise of the primary transportation method for fuel over the four time periods 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

train

truck

pipeline

3. Please advise on the usage of fuel on your project

power generation

heavy machinery

vehicles

other

4. Where do you intend to store fuel (if offsite, please state where)?

If more than one storage location offsite, please list all locations in the text box.

onsite

offsite

5. Which of the statement(s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required fuel requirements?

Studies completed to date based on a full analysis of energy strategies, incorporating organisation drivers Based on self assessment of fuel options using assumptions and current government policies

Tranported fuel was the best commercial option

Some questions were not answered as fuel options, at this stage, are unclear

All questions were not answered as fuel options, at this stage, are unclear

Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project

Other

6. What is the likelihood of the fuel information changing over the next 6 months?

very high

high

unlikely

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

6. Telecommunication Requirements

The following questions relate to your anticipated telecommunication needs and systems. Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 5 and 6 appropriately.

1. Please estimate your communication requirements across the four time periods 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years Comments

Mobile

Broadband

Satellite

Other (please specify)

2. What do you anticipate would be the bandwidth requirement for the various uses of telecommunication for over the four time periods 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years Comments

Corporate systems communications

Telemetry / SCADA

Smart systems

Local use (phone, internet, mobile, etc)

Other (please specify)

3. What is the likelihood of the telecommunication plans changing over the next 6 months?

4. If you left questions unanswered, or you selected ‘highly likely’ for Q3, please advise of the reason (s) why?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

7. Road Requirements - inbound

Please answer questions in relation to INBOUND road traffic only. You will be asked separately on projected OUTBOUND traffic. Some questions require information over a timeframe, for example, years 3-5. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational activity through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q10

1. Please advise the types of materials/activity type and percentage moving inbound via roads over each of the four time periods for your new project (If other, please specify) 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years Comment

Equipment

Processing materials

Fuels

Catering

Employee traffic

Other (please specify)

2. Please advise of the estimate tonnes per annum moving inbound via roads over each of the four time periods tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

3. Please advise of the anticipated number of vehicle movements per day moving inbound over each of the four time periods number of vehicle movements per day

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

4. For the daily traffic stipulated in Q3, please advise the estimated percentage of heavy vehicles (ie greater than 4.5 tonnes)

5. For the vehicle movement stipulated in question 4, what are your anticipated percentage of use by vehicle type over each of the four periods 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years

Rigid trucks, vans and buses

Semi trailers and rigid truck/ trailer combinations

B-Doubles

A-Doubles (double road train) and B-triples

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

Triple Road trains

Escort loads (over mass / over dimension)

Other

6. Please advise of the major supply point (eg. Adelaide) and percentage of total tonnage

7. Please advise of other major supply points (if applicable) and percentage of total tonnage

8. What percentage of this travel is anticipated to be on gazetted public roads?

9. Are any new roads proposed?

yes - sealed

yes - unsealed

10. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required road requirements for inbound?

Studies completed to date based on a full analysis of transportation strategies, incorporating organisation drivers Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence

Based on best guess Most of our transportation needs are for access requirements only (that is we need access to site and not carting heavy loads) Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear

Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project

Other

11. What is the likelihood of the road information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

8. Road Requirements - outbound

Please answer questions in relation to OUTBOUND road traffic only. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational traffic through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q8

1. Please advise the estimated number of tonnes per annum moving outbound via roads over each of the four time periods tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

2. Please advise the anticipated number of vehicles movements per day moving outbound via roads over each of the four time periods number of vehicles movements per day

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

3. For the daily traffic stipulated in Q2, please advise the estimated percentage of heavy vehicles (ie greater than 4.5 tonnes)

4. For the vehicle movement stipulated in question 3, what are your anticipated percentage of use by vehicle type over each of the four periods? 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years

Rigid trucks, vans and buses

Semi trailers and rigid truck/ trailer combinations

B-Doubles

A-Doubles (double road train) and B-triples

Triple Road trains

Escort loads (over mass / over dimension)

Other

5. Please advise of the major destination point and any subsequent destination points (with location) if applicable.

Rail Siding

Port

Adelaide

Other

6. What percentage of this travel is anticipated to be on gazetted public roads?

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

7. Are any new roads proposed?

yes - sealed

yes - unsealed

8. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required road requirements for outbound?

Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence

Based on best guess Most of our transportation needs are for access requirements only (ie, we need access to site and not carting heavy loads) Most of our transportation needs relate to heavy haulage (ie, ore transportation) Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project Other

9. What is the likelihood of the road information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

9. Rail Requirements - inbound

Please answer questions in relation to INBOUND rail traffic only. You will be asked separately on projected OUTBOUND traffic. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational traffic through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q5.

1. Please advise of the estimate tonnes per annum moving inbound via rail over each of the four time periods tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

2. Please advise of the type (s) of wagon rolling stock you intend to use?

Containerised Hopper car Tank car Open wagon

other

3. Please advise of the primary origin of rail movements inbound

4. Please advise of the primary destination of the trains (eg. Siding locations)

5. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the rail required requirements for inbound?

Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies Based on organisation drivers/policies only at this stage - little external influence Based on best guess

Rail was not considered due to distance barriers to access rail Rail was not considered due to available capacity on the rail network Rail was not selected due to uncertainly of potential charges Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project

Other

6. What is the likelihood of the rail information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

10. Rail Requirements - outbound

Please answer questions in relation to OUTBOUND rail traffic only. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational traffic through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q6.

1. Please advise of the estimate tonnes per annum moving outbound via rail over each of the four time periods tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

2. Please advise of the range of train trips per day moving outbound over the four time periods number of trips

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

3. Please advise of the type (s) of wagon rolling stock you intend to use?

Containerised

Hopper car Tank car

Open wagon

other

4. Please advise of the primary origin of rail movements outbound (eg. Siding locations, mine location)

5. Please advise of the primary destination of the trains (eg. Siding locations, port)

6. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required rail requirements for outbound?

Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence Based on best guess

Rail infrastructure constraints

Rail was not considered due to distance barriers to access rail

Rail was not considered due to available capacity on the rail network

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

Rail was not selected due to uncertainly of potential charges Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project other

7. Please advise of your anticipated usage of rail sidings below

Please specify location/name

plan to use existing siding

plan to build new siding

8. What is the likelihood of the rail information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

11. Ports - inbound

Please answer questions in relation to INBOUND vessel movement only. You will be asked separately on projected OUTBOUND traffic. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational traffic through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q8.

1. Are you intending to build a new port or use an existing port (if existing, please indicate which one below)?

Thevenard

Port Lincoln

Sheep Hill (proposed)

Whyalla

Bonython (Proposed)

Bonython (Existing)

Port Pirie

Wallaroo

Port Giles

Klein Point

Port Adelaide

Interstate (please specify location)

Other (please specify location)

New port (please specify location)

2. If applicable, please select below what you intend to receive at the port.

chemicals/product required for the project

project cargo required for construction or development of the project

other

n/a

3. Please advise of the estimated amount of project cargo or product (tonnes per annum) moving inbound via port over each of the four time periods. tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

4. If applicable, please advise what type of vessel you intend to use for bringing project cargo or product inbound over the four time periods below. vessel type Handimax Panamax Cape Super Cape

0-2 years

3-5 year

6-10 years

10 + years

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

5. If applicable, please indicate below how you intend to unload the vessel over the four time periods below. unloading method Bulk - Bulk - other (eg Off shore loading Containerised Tankers Other conveyor containerised tipping) (eg barging) 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years

6. Please advise of your primary origin port location

7. Please advise of any at port handling/storage requirements for the product or project cargo coming inbound

8. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required port requirements?

Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence

Based on best guess

Marine ports were not considered due to distance barriers to port infrastructure

Marine ports were not considered due to available capacity through the port

Marine ports were not considered due to cross contamination issues

Marine ports were not considered due to high costs

Marine ports were not selected due to uncertainty due of environment approvals Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project (please state why) Other

9. What is the likelihood of port information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

12. Ports - outbound

Please answer questions in relation to OUTBOUND vessel movement only. Please differentiate anticipated construction and operational traffic through the use of the timeframes, where appropriate. Please attempt to answer all questions. If you are unable to do this, as a minimum, please complete Q7.

1. Are you intending to build a new port or use an existing port (if existing, please indicate which one below)?

Thevenard

Port Lincoln

Sheep Hill (proposed) Whyalla

Bonython (Proposed)

Bonython (Existing)

Port Pirie Wallaroo

Port Giles

Klein Point

Port Adelaide

Interstate (please state location)

Other (please state location)

New port (please state location)

2. Please advise of the estimated amount of product (tonnes per annum) moving outbound via port over each of the four time periods tonnes per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

3. If applicable, please advise what type of vessel you intend to use for shipping your product outbound over the four time periods below. Handimax Panamax Cape Super Cape

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

4. If applicable, please indicate below how you intend to load the vessel over the four time periods below. Bulk - Bulk - other (eg Off shore loading Containerised Tankers Other conveyor containerised tipping) (eg barging) 0-2 years 3-5 years

6-10

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

years 10 + years

5. Please advise of your primary destination port location

6. Please advise of any at port handling/storage requirements for the product going outbound

7. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required port requirements?

Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence

Based on best guess

Marine ports were not considered due to distance barriers to port infrastructure

Marine ports were not considered due to available capacity through the port

Marine ports were not considered due to cross contamination issues

Marine ports were not considered due to high costs

8. What is the likelihood of port information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

13. Airports

The following questions relate to your anticipated air related infrastructure. Please attempt to answer all questions based on your current plans. Where your plans are uncertain, or you wish to provide additional comments in relation to your plans, please answer question 6 and 7 appropriately.

1. Are you intending to build a new airport or use an existing airport? required

new airport

new air strip

new helipad only

existing airport

existing air strip

existing helipad

none of the above

2. Do you intend to store product at the aerodrome? size State of product?

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

3. Please advise the plane type and frequency of flights plane type frequency of flights per annum

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

10 + years

4. Which airport do you intend to use?

Leigh Creek

Ceduna

Kingscote

Mount Gambier

Olympic Dam

Port Augusta

Port Lincoln Whyalla

Interstate

Other

Other (new)

5. Please advise of your primary destination airport location

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

6. Which of the statement (s) below best fit the assumptions that underpin the required port requirements?

Studies completed to date based on a full analysis of transportation strategies, incorporating organisation drivers/policies Based on a combined approach with other infrastructure developers in the area Based on self assessment of transportation options using assumptions and current government policies

Based on our organisation policies only at this stage - little external influence

Based on best guess

Air was not considered due to distance barriers to air infrastructure Air was not considered due to available capacity to fly goods in or out

Air was not considered due to costs Some questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, have not been fully worked through All questions were not answered as transportation options, at this stage, are unclear Questions were left unanswered as they are not relevant / appropriate for our project (please state why) Other

7. What is the likelihood of airport information changing over the next 6 months?

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

14. Further Comments

The following questions are to better understand the collaboration efforts, high level commercial arrangements and potential issues and challenges that this project is faced with. We would appreciate your feedback and any recommendations that you may have.

1. What infrastructure costs will you share with other parties?

electricity

gas

water

fuel (diesel)

rail

road

ports

airports

none

2. Are there any infrastructure costs that you would like to share?

yes - electricity

yes - water yes - gas

yes - fuel (diesel)

yes - telecommunication yes - road

yes - rail

yes - ports

yes - airports no

no - have not investigated

no, unsure

3. Please indicate the commercial arrangement of your project

solely funded by the organisation

equity partner joint venture arrangement

other

4. If any, what major barriers do or have you have faced with respect to this project?

5. What recommendations would you make to assist in facilitating investment in the South Australia?

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

6. Provide further details you consider important in addition to the questions answered.

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 2

15. Further Questions - Petroleum, Oil and Gas operations only

1. Please specify the anticipated time periods in which each of the following equipment will be required 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 10+ Comment years years years years Drilling equipment (please specify anticipated number of rigs required in time period)

Seismic acquisition equipment

Seismic processing

Flow testing equipment

Fracture stimulation equipment

Casing equipment

Flowline and Pipeline equipment (pipe, compressors, etc)

Other (please specify)

2. Please specify the approximate number of skilled staff members to be required in each time period 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 + years

Geologists

Geophysicists

Engineers

Trades

Operations

Financial professionals

3. Please estimate the time periods in which each of the following exploration and appraisal activities will occur 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 10+ Comment years years years years

Data Acquisition

Seismic

Drilling - Exploration (specify number of wells to be drilled if possible) Drilling - Appraisal (specify number of wells to be drilled if possible)

Completion/ fracing

Other (please specify)

4. Please estimate the time periods in which each of the following development activities will take place 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 10+ Comment years years years years Drilling - Development (specify number of wells to be drilled)

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 2 of 2

Construction pipeline/Gathering system

Commissioning pipeline/Gathering system

Bulk Storage

Construction Gas processing / Syngas/ Synfuel Manufacture Commissioning Gas processing / Syngas/ Synfuel Manufacture

Construction LNG facility

Commissioning LNG facility

Construction Carbon sequestration facilities

Commissioning Carbon sequestration facilities

Other (please specify)

5. Please specify the anticipated time periods in which each of the following Milestones are to be achieved 0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years

Reserve Characterisation

Reserve Certification

Contract for Sales

FEED

Final Investment Decision

Regulatory Approvals

6. What will be the primary market for your resource?

Export

Domestic

8. Please provide any comments that you deem important in regards to petroleum, oil and gas exporation, development and operation.

<< Previous Page Next Page >>

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011 Resources and Energy Infrastructure Demand Study Page 1 of 1

16. Final

The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is about to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study into an Upper Spencer Gulf Heavy Industry Hub. The study will determine the needs of future mining and major required development projects in the Upper Spencer Gulf region and the capacity of local industry to meet those needs.

Please indicate if you are willing to participate in this survey.

<< Previous Page

http://www.surveyfactory.com/account?cmd=_question-preview&pid=707&sid=798... 26/05/2011

Appendix I Weightings methodology

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Project Status Definition assigned points for weightings Exploration undertaking field exploration including on-site drilling programs 10 Concept Analysing core samples and undertaking desktop studies including mine planning, test work and early approvals. 20 Pre-feasibility identification of a resource (JORC), commencement of baseline studies which could include the use of consultants. 30 Feasibility As per pre-feasibility study, but would include significant engagement and use of external consultants. 40 Bankable As per feasibility study but with a robust financial model for capex and opex under development due to the requirement for external funding from financial institutions in most cases. 50 Execution Project finance in place and board approval to proceed with full construction of the asset. 100

Level of External Assistance Assigned points for weightings none 0 yes <50% external 5 yes >50% external 10

Information likely or unlikely to change a maximum of 15 points were allocated where project proponents indicated that information was unlikely to change across all infrastructure areas, for example water, road, rail, etc. This number decreased as blank, likely or highly likely selections were chosen

A project was considered 'weighted' if it achieved over 45 points

Appendix J Textual responses from survey

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Organisation Name If any, what major barriers do or have you have faced with respect to this What recommendations would you make to assist in facilitating Provide further details you consider important in project? investment in the South Australia? addition to the questions answered. Ahava Energy Exploration areas are remote with little access road (even unsealed) and lack of telecommunication facilities (eg. mobile phones), which makes explorations very expensive Altona Energy Construction cost escalation risk, access to skilled human resources in 1. The SA Government to seek Expressions of Interest for a competition with other Australian resource projects, potential delays in port public/private consortium to build a new multi user bulk commodities access and construction and liquids port in the USG, with Government providing a limited completion guarantee but no direct funding and the private party bringing at least one start up port user to the table. 2. SACOME and the Government to establish a working group to recommend options to boost understanding of water resources and access to water needed for new resources and infrastructure projects (water being the biggest missing link in the infrastructure chain) 3. The Government to review its energy policy with a view to providing a workable policy framework to encourage investment in cleaner base load power generation capacity and transmission network enhancement and to be clear about the costs to industry of over- reliance on renewable sources in SA

Arafura Resources Limited Natural gas pipeline capacity to Whyalla and funding of a new pipeline is a Questionaire could be improved by having a comments major concern section at the end of each page to allow discussion of answeres provided. natural gas consumption needs to consider peak and continuous demand requirements. Outbound rail number of trips per day needs to be revisited as the selections are excessive.

This questionaire is also targetted at mining operations in SA and is not well suited for a project like ours where we are processing ore from a source external to SA.

Beach Energy "uncertainty about wharfage charges","Access to stimulation equipment. Road "Clarify wharfage charges to ensure clarity for all.","Clarify all of the , access. Uncertain fiscal regime (onshore PRRT, Carbon Tax uncertainty, State above. Concessional royalty rates for Shale Gas. R&D incentives for royalty rates)." Shale Gas development." BHP Billiton From an exploration perspective, there are significant limitations on land access under native heritage legislation. The act needs to be addressed. ILUA process is also costly and takes an extended period of time. BP Australia Pty Ltd find commerial quanties of resources during the exploration phase. assistance with regulation, a public service that is willing to assist in Regulatory approvals are alos required the approval process and understands commercial timelines

Carpentaria Exploration Pty "Rail and Port infrastructure suitable to handle large quantities of future "Government to look at establishing port facilities with deep water "The project will be oprating in 2 regions of Australia - NSW Ltd products with access to deep water to allow large cargo ships access such as access in the Spencer Gulf region","Ensure there is sufficient real and SA, the mine on the boarder and the pelletising plant / Cape size vessels capable of loading in excess of 50Mtpa","Project still in estate at a new port facility to meet possible growth of exports out of filter plant in SA. In trying to detail the project it is very exploration phase" SA" difficult to seperate the requirements for the 2 sites. I have therefore tried to list the requirements for the SA infrastructure requirements. If you have any queries contact Keith Broekman on 07 32202022 to discuss. The plan for the mine is to mine Â±120M tonnes of ore to produce Â±20M tonnes of concentrate which will be exported through South Australia.",

Centrex Metals Limited "Lack of infrastructure for power, water and existing cape capable port. This "Upgrade of the Eyre Peninsula Power supply to 275kv as soon as project is our answer to the Port issue - ie build our own","Existing bulk export possible. Will assist a number of potential mining projects, provide port not available. Therefore we are looking to build our own port. power syupply for desalination plants for water supply and allow full Power supply limited to the area, hence looking at diesel generator","Lack of usage of existing and increased number of wind farms",,"Upgrade the power supply infrastructure and water - building our own at Sheep Hill","Lack 132kv line down the centre of the Eyre peninsula to dual of power, water and port infrastructure - hence looking to build our own" 275kv","Upgrade 132kv line down centre of Eyre Peninsula to 275KV"

Page 1 Organisation Name If any, what major barriers do or have you have faced with respect to this What recommendations would you make to assist in facilitating Provide further details you consider important in project? investment in the South Australia? addition to the questions answered. Flinders Exploration Limited

Geodynamics Limited The project is in appraisal stage, thus the project may or may not proceed and The Cooper Basin has great potential to be a clean energy hub for the associated infrastructure requirements may or may not be required Australia with its geothermal, solar and gas resources.

Gunson Resources Limited

Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd hillgrove Resources hillgrove Resources Hillgrove Resources Limited

Icon Energy LTD Iluka Resources Ltd "Using traditional concentrating methodolgy the deposit is marginally , ,"This is a concept only to represent the potential increase in economically viable - challenge is to investigate alternative concentrating deposits (through optimisation given higher commodity methods to improve the economics fo the project", prices) and/or increase throughput capacity by upgrading the current concentrator capacity. It is very much a ""work in progress"""

IMX REsources Logisitics and access to a port - this is for our exisitn project and moving Govt to take the money it's going to spend on the Adelaide oval The questions provided only have limited options for forward for any other projects redevelopment and take it to faciliate investment in infrastrucutre answers - currently we do not know any of the details of this possible project going forward as exploration is currently occurring

Iron Road Limited Lack of Infrastructure for high volume export Investment by government in infrastructure to create PULL Uncertainty wrt federal goverment policies and the impact of these eg. carbon tax IronClad Mining Inferior port options Build a bloody big cape size port!!! Build it ASAP IronClad Mining Limited Linc Energy Lincoln Minerals Limited Metals X Limited high upfront capital associated with lack of infrastructure The central musgrave area is ready to progress with development and A federal approach to central australia is required to further exploration - the first state to install reasonable infrastructure is adequately meet infrastructure requirements and to achieve likely to get all of that business the best outcomes for the country. Area is devoid of commercial infrastructure, and minerals business could flourish if it were present

Minotaur Exploration Ltd "Water, port", OneSteel "Avaiability of water delivery infrastructure","Water supply infrastructure"

Panax Geothermal PepinNini Minerals Limited "No grid power available, Water scarcity","None yet" "Better availability of shared common user infrastructure such as grid power availability","Better availability of of common share infrastructure" Petratherm Limited risk capital Protavia Pty Ltd Barriers have not related to issues with the control of SA Government very happy with the system the questions in relation to volume of freight (in and out) should be expressed in '000 tonnes per annum not single units Rex Minerals Ltd Royal Resources Limited Port access, land access, power access, water access, poor government Case study officer appointed to carry the project across all regulation alignment, poor local infrastructure, this list could take 5 pages on government departments its own! Santos Ltd Strike Energy Ltd As a junior resource company, attracting investment partners to participate in Continued Government cooperation and support for major projects of the development of the Kingston Project. this nature. Syngas Limited Funding,Funding , , UraniumSA Currently in pre-feasibility - trial to be completed.

Page 2

Appendix K Percent complete surveys

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Company Name Number of % Complete Projects Altona Energy 1 100% Arafura Resources Limited 1 100% Ahava Energy 1 100% BHP Billiton 1 100% Beach Energy 2 100% BP Australia Pty Ltd 1 100% Carpentaria Exploration Pty Ltd 2 100% Centrex Metals 4 100% Flinders Exploration Limited 1 15% Geodynamics 1 100% Gunson Resources 1 90% Heathgate Resources 1 100% Hillgrove Resources 1 100% Icon Energy LTD 1 5% Iluka Resources 2 100% IMX Resources 1 100% Iron Road Limited 1 100% Iron Clad Mining 1 100% Linc Energy 5 1% Lincoln Minerals 1 100% Metals X Limited 1 100% Minotaur Exploration 2 100% OneSteel 2 100% OZ Minerals 1 100% Panax Geothermal 1 100% Pepinnini Minerals 2 100% Petratherm Limited 1 100% Protavia 1 100% Rex Minerals 1 15% Royal Resources 1 100% Santos 1 100% Strike Energy Ltd 1 100% Syngas Limited 2 100% Trafford Resources 1 1% UraniunSA 1 100%

Appendix L Maps

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Map 1: Project Status (unweighted)

Project Status (unweighted) Exploration

Concept

Pre-feasibility

Feasibility Upper North Execution COOBER PEDY

Bankable

Railways Highway / Freeway Regions ROXBY DOWNS RDA Regions Adelaide Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Barossa Far North BROKEN HILL THEVENARD Eyre Limestone Coast Peninsula PORT AUGUSTA Murraylands and Riverlands

Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula WHYALLA Yorke and Mid-North Great Australian Bight Yorke Peninsula/Braemar

PORT LINCOLN ADELAIDE

BORDERTOWN

0 100 200 km MOUNT GAMBIER Map 2: (! Total Project Capex (weighted)

Total Project Capex - $M (weighted) !( 30 - 405 (! 750 - 1230 (! 1780 - 1885 (! (! 3050 - 4325 (! Upper North COOBER PEDY! (! 6000 - 8500

! No data supplied

Railways !!ROXBY DOWNS Highway / Freeway Regions RDA Regions !( !( Adelaide Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island !( BROKEN HILL! !THEVENARD Barossa Eyre Peninsula ! Far North PORT AUGUSTA !( (! Limestone Coast !( (!! (! Murraylands and Riverlands WHYALLA Yorke Peninsula/Braemar Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula (! Great Australian Bight (! !( Yorke and Mid-North !( !( !( (! PORT LINCOLN !(! !ADELAIDE !(

BORDERTOWN!

0 100 200 Z km (! MOUNT GAMBIER! Map 3: ROXBY DOWNS Weighted demand for key infrastructure sectors - Eyre Peninsula Upper North

Project Status (weighted)

Pre-feasibility Iluka Resources Ltd Tripitaka Feasibility

Execution

Bankable THEVENARD Eyre Railways Peninsula IronClad Mining PORT AUGUSTA Highway / Freeway Whilcherry Hill Iron Ore Project Regions Beach Energy LNG Plant RDA Regions OneSteel Adelaide Haematite extension Iron Road Limited OneSteel WHYALLA Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Central Eyre Iron Project Magnetite extension Barossa Great Australian Bight Centrex Metals Limited Far North Eyre Iron Magnetite project Limestone Coast Centrex Metals Limited Centrex Metals Limited Bungalow Magnetite Mine Murraylands and Riverlands Wilgerup Hematite Mine Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula Spencer Yorke and Mid-North Gulf Yorke Peninsula/Braemar Centrex Metals Limited Centrex Sheep Hill Port

PORT LINCOLN Gulf St Vincent Lincoln Minerals Limited Gum Flat Iron Ore

Eyre Peninsula 2011-2013 2014-2016 2017-2021 2021+ Electricity (peak consumption MW) 187.5 342.5 455 452.5 Water (annual consumption ML) 27750 51200 52850 32550 Gas (TJ per day) 7.5 12.5 10 10 Road inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 80.1 81.8 81.8 81.7 Road outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 620 1710 1235 1235 Rail inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 0 400 625 625

0 50 100 Rail outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 8000 8500 8500 500 km Port inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 985 3050 1925 1160 Port outbound (million tonnes per annum) 18.8 37.5 50.3 49.3 Map 4: Upper North Weighted demand for key infrastructure sectors - Yorke Peninsula/Braemar

Pepinnini Minerals Limited Crocker Well Uranium Project BROKEN HILL Project Status (weighted) Pre-feasibility

Feasibility Carpentaria Exploration Pty Ltd Hawsons Iron Ore Project Execution PORT AUGUSTA Eyre Bankable Peninsula

Railways

Highway / Freeway Royal Resources Limited WHYALLA Razorback Iron Project Regions RDA Regions Adelaide Yorke Peninsula/Braemar Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Barossa Far North Limestone Coast Murraylands and Riverlands Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula Syngas Limited Yorke and Mid-North Clinton Coal to Liquid Project Syngas Limited Bio-Power project Yorke Peninsula

Gulf St Vincent Spencer Gulf

ADELAIDE Yorke Peninsula/Braemar 2011-2013 2014-2016 2017-2021 2021+ Electricity (peak consumption MW) 7.5 52.5 80 72.5 Water (annual consumption ML) 1100 34050 101100 101300 Gas (TJ per day) 0 165 165 165 Road inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 5.2 5.3 6.4 2.3 Road outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 250 250 550 300 Rail inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 1000 2000 1125 1000

0 25 50 Rail outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 6000 26000 20500 21000 km Port inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 250 250 300 375 Port outbound (million tonnes per annum) 0 35 35.5 36.5 Map 5: Weighted demand for key infrastructure sectors Metals X Ltd - Upper North Wingellina Nickel Project

Project Status (weighted) Pre-feasibility

Feasibility

Execution Altona Energy Arckaringa CTL Bankable and Power Project Santos Ltd Cooper Gas Growth Railways Highway / Freeway Upper North COOBER PEDY Regions RDA Regions Adelaide Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Barossa BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Project Far North Limestone Coast ROXBY DOWNS Murraylands and Riverlands Whyalla and Eyre Peninsula

Yorke and Mid-North Gunson Resources Ltd Mount Gunson

THEVENARD Eyre Peninsula PORT AUGUSTA Great Australian Bight WHYALLA

Upper North 2011-2013 2014-2016 2017-2021 2021+ Yorke Peninsula/Braemar Electricity (peak consumption MW) 50 170 697.5 697.5 Water (annual consumption ML) 7100 13350 12600 12600 Gas (TJ per day) 0 15 15 15 Road inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 251.0 501.5 501.5 501.5 PORT LINCOLN Road outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 310 900 1200 120A0DELAIDE Rail inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 1000 2025 2025 2025 0 100 200 Rail outbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 500 2500 22500 23500 km Port inbound ('000 tonnes per annum) 1886 2652 2802 2802 Port outbound (million tonnes per annum) 0.5 1.5 17 17

Appendix M Scenario drivers

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Of the trends identified , capturing those that have strong impact on SA infrastructure development

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Low High Impact So what trends did matter?

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Low High Impact

Appendix N Seven workshop scenarios

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

7 scenarios were developed

Irony – Resource abundance but there are critical supply infrastructure capacity constraints - water and energy scarcity and connectivity challenges become over encompassing.

Jigsaw – A smooth process for dealing with the complexity in gaining approvals with appropriate Dr Who? Private equity dominates mechanisms to support the industry. Emerging investment and ownership. The new ‘user Government and world issues make it easier to pays’ city becomes a way of the future where plan, and create confidence in the industry. asset management decision making is the focus.

Greener Pastures - Current Government Consumption plus - continued demand and international progress on for our resources, and NPVs drive a need sustainability directs investment into to get more out more quickly. We respond greener solutions. to a step change in increased volume, with multi entry and exit points for the heavy haulage supply chain.

Red Herring – mining boom fades and we move onto other priorities as capital plans don’t Me me me – in the race to develop solutions eventuate. We shift our focus to other priorities (competing interests) and get the green light for that proves to be the real golden goose! projects, only few organisations survive. 4 scenarios to work through (day 1)

Irony – Resource abundance but there are critical supply infrastructure capacity constraints - water and energy scarcity and connectivity challenges become over encompassing. • Tanking / shipping water to site, and nuclear powered desalination plants • Nuclear power to support mining activities, decentralised power villages Questions – what can we propose to alleviate energy and water concerns, how do we bring about cost effective and real solutions, are there specific issues in the regions, can we overcome the regulatory hurdles?

Jigsaw – A smooth process for dealing with the complexity in gaining approvals with appropriate mechanisms to support the industry. Emerging Government and world issues make it easier to plan, and create confidence in the industry. • Centralised mega Federal development agency overseeing all resource and energy development within Australia Questions – how do we bring about the changes of reduced red tape or improving the support to organisations, how does Government restructure itself to provide improved support?

Greener Pastures - Current Government and international progress on sustainability directs investment into greener solutions. • Green power is a mandatory requirement for all new developments • SA is Asia’s leading new industry and innovation centre for sustainable energy solutions to high energy uses Questions – how do we support the use of alternative fuels, reduce waste, etc. How do we bring the costs down of providing cleaner energy – is it just about the cost?

Red Herring – mining boom fades and we move onto other priorities as capital plans don’t eventuate. We shift our focus to other priorities that proves to be the real golden goose! • SA facing high unemployment as it missed the opportunity for other investment opportunities • ‘Would be’ mining towns empty with a new ‘Detroit’ like rust bucket Questions – how do we facilitate sustainable investment? How do we ensure we develop fit for purpose assets and reduce the likelihood of gold plating or stranded assets? How do we manage expectations? 3 scenarios to work through (day 2)

Consumption plus - continued demand for our resources, and NPVs drive a need to get more out more quickly. We respond to a step change in increased volume, with multi entry and exit points for the heavy haulage supply chain. • 3 new major sea ports and 3 international airports in SA • New freight rail lines to Darwin Questions – what can we propose to alleviate transport concerns, how do we support the export of high volume heavy haulage, are there specific issues in the regions, can we overcome the capacity issues?

Dr Who? Private equity dominates investment and ownership. The new ‘user pays’ city becomes a way of the future where asset management decision making is the focus. • Superannuation funds determine how the state is developed • Entire cities are tolled to recoup the initial investment Questions – how do we facilitate appropriate and well considered investment, can we rely on external support – will they invest, what role does Government play in infrastructure investment?

Me me me – in the race to develop solutions (competing interests) and get the green light for projects, only few organisations survive • 3 major mining / energy players exist in SA • All infrastructure is privately owned and access is exclusive creating a powerful tri-opoly Questions – how do we support all players (big and small) in their aspirations for development, is it reasonable to do so? How do we ensure collaboration and knowledge sharing; as opposed to pure capitalist gain?

Appendix O Scenario workshop participants

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Day 1 (utilities) attendee list

Company Capability Contact title/role Specific Attendees ElectraNet Electricity Sean Leyden Senior Manager Project Management Office SA Water Water Networks Steve Kotz Manager Long Term Planning Epic Energy Gas Networks Peter Sardelis Manager Business and Asset Development Telstra Telecomms Sue Lamshed Corporate Affairs Manager SA Telstra Telecomms John Lane Area Planning Manager Dept for Water Water Resources Geoff Yeomans Policy Adviser General Attendees RDA (Whyalla and Eyre Pen) RDA Mark Cant RDA (Yorke and Mid North) RDA Kelly-Anne Saffin RDA (Far North) RDA Rob Gibb RDA (Far North) RDA Claire Wiseman Australian Geothermal Energy Association (AGEA) Industry Rep Susan Jeans CEO Regional Industry Development Board (RIDB) Industry Rep Keith Yates Acting Chair SA Minerals & Petroleum Expert Group (SAMPEG) Industry Rep Ian Gould Chair/President EPMA/RESIC Reference Group Eyre Peninsula Rep/RRG Steve Marlow Maximus Reosurces/RESIC Referece Group RRG Kevin Malaxos Managing Director RESIC Reference Group/PIRSA RRG/PIRSA Martin Reid RESIC Reference Group/PIRSA RRG/PIRSA Malcolm Walton RESIC Reference Group RRG Tino Guglielmo DPLG Planning David Litchfield Director Major Projects DTED Regional Development Trent Mader Director PIRSA Petroleum and Unconventional Gas Barry Goldstein Executive Director PIRSA Petroleum and Unconventional Gas Belinda Hayter PIRSA Minerals Ted Tyne Executive Director SACOME SACOME Jason Kuchel Chief Executive SACOME/RESIC Reference Group SACOME/RRG Nigel Long Director, Environment & Sustainability SACOME/RESIC Reference Group SACOME/RRG Jonathon Forbes Director University of Adelaide Academia Stephen Grano Director, Institute for Mineral & Energy Resources UCL School of Energy & Resources Australia Academia David Travers Chief Executive Minotaur Braemar Andrew Woskett SynGas RESIC/YP Merrill Gray BHP Billiton Upper North Rep Giles Hellyer BHPB - VP HSEQ Altona Upper North Rep Chris Schrape RESIC/Iluka Hans Umlauff RESIC/SACOME John Roberts RESIC Lew Owens RESIC/Centrex Metals Jim white RESIC/BHP Billiton Dean Dalla Valle RESIC/DTED Lance Worrell RESIC Bruce Carter RESIC/PIRSA Paul Heithersay Deputy Chief Executive, Resources & Infrastructure RESIC/DTEI Rod Hook Chief Executive, Project Coordination Board RESIC/DTEI Peter Short PIRSA Michael Jarosz PIRSA Andrew Rowett Petratherm Terry Kallis Geodynamics Alistair Webb ETSA Caprice Davey DTED Trevor Bennett DTED Tim Deer ? Lachlan Kinner ? Graham Nathan ? Graig Oakshott Others PB Paul Williams Facilitator PB Nick Flanagan Table Captain PB Justin Nottage Table Captain PB Jenny Cannella Scribe/assist PIRSA Joe Mastrangelo Table Captain PIRSA Kim Potoczky assist PIRSA Sue Czerniak assist Day 2 (transport) attendee list

Company Capability Contact title/role Specific Attendees SA Freight Council Transport Logistics Neil Murphy General Manager Adelaide Airport Airport John McArdle GM Corporate Affairs DTEI Policy and Planning James Buder Senior Adviser, Ports & Logistics DTEI Policy and Planning Peter Hollister DTEI Transport - Transport Services Division Andrew Milazzo Executive Director DTEI Road - Policy & Planning Mark Elford Director, Road Transport Planning DTEI Rail - Policy & Planning Mike Wilde Snr Rail Policy Adviser General Attendees RDA (Whyalla and Eyre Pen) RDA Mark Cant RDA (Yorke and Mid North) RDA Kelly-Anne Saffin EPMA/RESIC Referece Group Eyre Peninsula Rep/RRG Steve Marlow Maximus Reosurces /RESIC Referece Group RRG Kevin Malaxos Managing Director DPLG Planning David Litchfield Director Major Projects DTED Regional Development Tim Deer Minotaur Braemar/Yorke Rep Andrew Woskett SynGas Braemar/Yorke Rep Merrill Gray Altona Upper North Rep Chris Schrape RESIC/DTED Lance Worrell RESIC/DTEI Peter Short PIRSA Michael Jarosz Filnders Ports Peter Cheers ARTC Derek Harris G & W Peter Taylor Flinders Ports Andrew Pellizzari Robert Demarco RESIC Reference Group/PIRSA RRG/PIRSA Malcolm Walton PB Tom Newland Others (both days) PB Paul Williams Facilitator PB Nick Flanagan Table Captain PB Justin Nottage Table Captain PB Jenny Cannella Scribe/assist PIRSA Joe Mastrangelo Table Captain PIRSA Kim Potoczky assist PIRSA Sue Czerniak assist Day 2 (transport) invite list

Company Capability Contact title/role Specific Attendees ARTC Rail Nick Minnervini Customer Development Manager Flinders Ports Ports Sean Reardon General Manager Infrastructure SA Freight Council Transport Logistics Neil Murphy General Manager Adelaide Airport Airport John McArdle GM Corporate Affairs DTEI Policy and Planning Sheree Goldsworthy Director DTEI Policy and Planning James Buder Senior Adviser, Ports & Logistics DTEI Policy and Planning Peter Hollister DTEI Transport - Transport Services Division Andrew Milazzo Executive Director DTEI Road - Policy & Planning Mark Elford Director, Road Transport Planning DTEI Rail - Policy & Planning Mike Wilde Snr Rail Policy Adviser General Attendees RDA (Whyalla and Eyre Pen) RDA Mark Cant RDA (Yorke and Mid North) RDA Kelly-Anne Saffin RDA (Far North) RDA Rob Gibb RDA (Far North) RDA Claire Wiseman Regional Industry Development Board (RIDB) Industry Rep Keith Yates Acting Chair SA Road Transport Association Transport/Haulage Gemma Gordon President SA Minerals & Petroleum Expert Group (SAMPEG) Industry Rep Ian Gould Chair/President EPMA/RESIC Referece Group Eyre Peninsula Rep/RRG Steve Marlow Maximus Reosurces /RESIC Referece Group RRG Kevin Malaxos Managing Director RESIC Reference Group/PIRSA RRG/PIRSA Martin Reid RESIC Reference Group RRG Tino Guglielmo DPLG Planning David Litchfield Director Major Projects DTED Regional Development Trent Mader Director PIRSA PIRSA/Industry Rep Barry Goldstein Executive Director PIRSA PIRSA/Industry Rep Belinda Hayter PIRSA PIRSA Minerals Ted Tyne Executive Director SACOME Industry Rep Jason Kuchel Chief Executive SACOME/RESIC Reference Group Industry Rep/RRG Nigel Long Director, Environment & Sustainability SACOME/RESIC Reference Group Industry Rep/RRG Jonathon Forbes Director University of Adelaide Academia Stephen Grano Director, Institute for Mineral & Energy Resources University of South Australia Academia Derek Scrafton Adjunct Prof of Transport Policy & Planning UCL School of Energy & Resources Australia Academia David Travers Chief Executive Minotaur Braemar/Yorke Rep Andrew Woskett SynGas Braemar/Yorke Rep Merrill Gray BHP Billiton Upper North Rep Giles Hellyer Altona Upper North Rep Chris Schrape RESIC/Iluka Hans Umlauff RESIC/SACOME John Roberts RESIC Lew Owens RESIC/Centrex Metals Jim white RESIC/BHP Billiton Dean Dalla Valle RESIC/DTED Lance Worrell RESIC Bruce Carter RESIC/PIRSA Paul Heithersay Deputy Chief Executive, Resources & Infrastructure RESIC/DTEI Rod Hook Chief Executive, Project Coordination Board RESIC/DTEI Peter Short PIRSA Michael Malavazos PIRSA Michael Jarosz PIRSA Andrew Rowett Filnders Ports Peter Cheers ARTC Simon Ormsby ARTC Derek Harris DTED Bengy Paolo DTED Tim Deer Lachlan Kinner Graham Nathan PIRSA Tony Hill Others (both days) PB Paul Williams Facilitator PB Nick Flanagan Table Captain PB Justin Nottage Table Captain PB Jenny Cannella Scribe/assist PIRSA Joe Mastrangelo Table Captain PIRSA Kim Potoczky assist PIRSA Sue Czerniak assist

Appendix P Workshop output

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Day 1 - Utilities

Location Scenario Value Proposition Certainty Impact

Upper HML HML North Irony Priority to GAB as water source, then sustainable access to water for priority projects may be accelerated 4 0 0 4 0 0 If transmission access corridor is created, then it facilitates development of future transmission + communications network 4 1 0 3 20

Eyre Sheep Hill approved - generation demand, solved by gas fired power station (100MW+) Desal (30GL) built in location 3 1 0 0 4 0 Peninsula Irony Corridor identified - supply other users 010010 Develop triparate agreement (resource, infrastructure suppliers, private sector investments) to maximise sustainable investment + collaboration 300210 SAG approval condition - new key infrastructure has additional capacity build in and made available/accessible to (SA) companies. Alliances to build & fund 110020 Leverage potential mining projects (All state borders) to create infrastructure development opportunities York + Irony water pipeline + energy and Corridor for power export (renewables/nuclear) 3 1 1 0 5 0 Braemar Leverage geothermal + existing gas developments to supply power/energy locally and interstate - interconnector 1 3 0 0 3 1 if interconnector established, (corridor), natural gas generated power can be imported/exported 0 1 1 0 0 2

If government were to seek & implement specific introduction - private certification - appropriate guidelines to occur 3 5 0 0 4 3 Jigsaw Allowing collective reporting on common issues - eg Base data 210120 Government to facilitate whole of solution and to manage resources and project development 2 1 0 1 2 0 Each region to develop resource infrastructure support plan 122023 If government supports research & development of hybrid power generation technologies, then effective solutions will be developed by the market 010001 Government promotes private industry development of distributed/stand alone generation capabilities using a business model to Greener Pastures allow mining projects to lease the assets 010001 If government provided green energy rebate, then mining companies would be encouraged to use the technology 0 0 4 0 0 4

If we build infrastructure, build it with a view to exporting interstate if demand reduces, eg wind power 3 2 1 1 5 0 Red Herring Incorporate modular/removable/relocatable infrastructure where practicable - reduce risk of stranded assets 2 0 1 0 3 0 Ensure that multi-skilling/training occurs regarding employment opportunities - alternatives 0 3 0 0 3 0 Incorporate community education process to prevent commercial loss 0 3 0 0 2 1 If we continue to invest in our market research & testing of potential + developing markets, then we can prevent over/under investment or ill informed decisions - introduce KPI's 060051 Day 2 - Transport

Location Scenario Value Proposition Certainty Impact

Eyre HML HML Peninsula Consumption Plus If we establish an inland interchange with conveyor to ports, then we can make available the full capacity of existing ports 420141

If the RDA's is an independent facilitator for the resource sector, then they can facilitate a commitment between companies in the 620260 region to develop common infrastructure

If we were to incrase the EP rail network and lease capacity to standardise the network + connect it into the interstate (DIRN) rail 620530 network, and ports, THEN rail becomes a realistic option for transportation of large scale bulk commodities If we establish an industrial precinct around proposal ports, then we inoculate those ports from urban encroachments, and prevent 710620 future congestion If we maximise the bulk transport tasks through efficient connecting rail & magnetite slurry lines to minimize: community safety, 900900 localised road network, maintenance costs, local government costs, freight costs IF SACOME had more active role to support industry participants around planning of infrastructure, then a more collaborative 063252 approach can be realised

York + Facilitate interim solutions to allow start up whilst a longer term, open access saleable solution to put into place 500140 Braemar Consumption Plus Recognise the need for a deep water port on the eastern side of Spencer Gulf (and the associated road & rail corridor needs) 531711 Improve road freight access into York Peninsula then we improve the interaction of freight and the community through 400040 improvements such as 'last mile' access which benefits all industries and users

If an all weather read was constructed through APY to WA border, then it would facilitate existing and future projects plus 142412 Upper exploration in the remotes communities If there was a greater focus on development of engineering, MFG and service hubs (eg USG) then supply chain for mining and 011101 North Consumption Plus community would be enhanced

If regional infrastructure/transport corridors were established and 'cleared' then it would facilitate planning and to/from access for 10 0 0 3 7 0 projects and communities If the government led the framework and facilitation of 'grouped' investment need then this would unlock financial hurdles for projects: identify, GAP, risk & DPP 040310 Dr Who If government were to facilitate/allow interim solutions this would deviate the need for high upfront infrastructure costs 2 2 2 0 6 0 If the government sets aside its AAA credit rating for a fixed period, then they could finance productive infrastructures 2 0 1 2 1 0 If the government simultaneously engage across industries i.e. all potential infrastructure users to determine full picture of demand, then they may discover sufficient certainty of demand to support infrastructure funding from private sector 0 6 0 3 3 0 If the SA government successfully lobby's the federal government to streamline protection under the trade practices act (access prov #1) then this may encourage investment 011020 If SA government (or suitable authority) can provide information on various funding sources & their requirements then industry can better target robust business cases for infrastructure Provide facilitation to industry for development of business cases 0 1 0 0 0 1 We need to review and ensure open access to support competition & hence better secure future infrastructure 2 1 2 2 2 1

Appendix Q Communication summary with infrastructure companies

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF | RESIC

Infrastructure Company Category Contact Name Time of call Outcome AEMO Electricity Craig Oakshott 2.30pm 7/7/2011 No other projects other than ElectraNet ETSA Electricity David Pritchard 1;45pm 13/7 No major inrastructure approved for rural SA. Epic Energy Gas Peter Sardelis 3.15pm 12/7/2011 Moomba to Stony point duplication in construction, The project involves the construction of new 450mm diameter pipeline adjacent to the existing SWQP as well as further compression at the inlet of the SWQP at Wallumbilla. The expanded SWQP capacity would be increased from 181TJ/d to approximately 380 TJ/d with a first gas date of January 2012. no other major projects SAFC Ports, rail, road, airport Neil Murphy 2.45 7/7/2011 Do not own infrastrucute, none planned ARTC Rail Nick Minnervini 2.00pm 13/7 Nick advised of minor upgards to rail network constructed in last 6 months including rail loops and resleepering. Referred to John Dowie for more info. ARTC Rail John Dowie 2.00pm 13/7 Left message to return call. Telstra Telecommunications John Lane 11.00am 15/7 John called and advised no major projects planned Adelaide Airport Transport John McArdle 2.15pm 7/7/2011 Upgrades to Adelaide and Parafield Airports, contained in master plan. DTEI Transport Phil Laws 2.05pm 13/7 Phil on leave until 26/7 provided contact details for Paul Bennett 82048808 - DTEI website has some planned infrastructure - not relevant to RESIC DTEI Transport Paul Bennett 2.05pm 13/7 Left message to return call. DTEI Transport Robert Munchinberg/Chris11.00am 14/7 Contacted Sheree Goldsworthy who transferred to Christine who transferred to Robert. Robert is looking at list of projects and will respond by email with a list of relevant projects that are public information and approved to go ahead. DTEI Transport Robert Munchinberg/Chris1.00pm 14/7 Reply via email from Robert. 2 projects - Port Bonython Jetty upgrade and Road upgrade - (no specific location) are relevant to study ARTC Transport - rail Nick Minnervinni 2pm 7/7/2011 Message left on mobile and landline ARTC Transport - rail Nick Minnervinni 2.30pm 12/7/2011 No answer mobile or landline, no message left Genesee and Wyoming Transport - rail Peter Taylor 2.10pm 7/7/2011 No relevant Projects as company will only act on behalf of other companies Flinders Ports Transport - shipping Sean Reardon 3.00pm 12/7/2011 Sean confirmed he is working on a feasibility report for Port Bonython, not approved and th there are various continuous upgrades planned for Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Port Adelaide and Port Giles. He had a meeting to attend so had to end call. Will call back if further information required. Mentioned that all ports have capacity to meet demand at this time.

ElectraNet Electricity reviewed Annual report 2011 SA Water Water Kane Scott 12.00pm 18/07/2011 Email reply received - refering to SA Water long term plan. Some planned infrastrucuture may impact mining but there are no committed projects.