Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland (EnvA) has lodged a formal complaint with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), alleging that Queensland Pacific Metals (QPM) may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
Supported by the Environmental Defenders Office, EnvA-CQ has asked ASIC to investigate whether QPM has breached the Corporations Act 2001 or ASIC Act 2001 by making potentially false or misleading claims to shareholders.
The group is also calling on the ASX to require QPM to issue a corrective announcement.
QPM has promoted plans to use waste gas captured from coal mines and coal seam gas (CSG) facilities to power its proposed Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub (TECH), which will produce nickel and cobalt sulphates for batteries used in renewable energy technologies.
Dr Coral Rowston, Director of Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland said:
“On face value, this looked like a reasonable proposal. We generally support the capture and reuse of waste methane gas, which is a highly potent greenhouse pollutant.
“However, when we asked QPM to disclose the gas sources, their response raised serious concerns.
“Many of the listed sites had nothing to do with genuine waste gas capture. It became clear the company was planning to rely on new coal seam gas extraction and not just repurposing waste gas. We believe that could constitute classic greenwashing.
“Even more troubling, QPM was telling shareholders not only that it would be net-zero, but that its project would reduce Australia’s overall carbon emissions without clear evidence to support that claim.”
Despite EnvA’s objections, including concerns about the proposed gas pipeline’s environmental impacts, both the federal and Queensland governments approved the project. The Queensland government also granted QPM $8 million to help progress the development.
QPM has now purchased Moranbah gas plant and have entered into a contract with Blue Energy to supply 112 PJ of coal seam gas.
“EnvA strongly supports the transition to a renewable energy economy,” said Dr Rowston.
“But relying on new fossil fuel extraction to do it is a contradiction in terms.
“Companies are legally required to provide accurate information to shareholders and governments. Misleading the public in order to secure funding and approvals is unacceptable.”
Further background
In July 2023, QPM lodged an EPBC referral in relation to a proposed gas pipeline to capture fugitive emissions in the northern Bowen Basin and use this gas to power their “environmentally friendly TECH project”. Our submission questioned the source of coal mine fugitive emissions among other matters- https://envacq.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/qpm-gas-pipeline-submission-.pdf .
We received a response to our submission from the proponent (https://envacq.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/20230724-qpm-energy-response-to-envacq-submission_v1_final.pdf) which we questioned through further correspondence as being questionable (https://envacq.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/qpm-gas-pipeline-clarification-correspondence.pdf). We did not receive a response to this as approvals were granted.
After this, it became apparent that QPM had purchased Arrow Energy’s Moranbah gas plant https://www.listcorp.com/asx/qpm/qpm-energy-limited/news/acquisition-of-moranbah-project-2858411.html, and had entered into a MOU for supply of CSG (https://blueenergy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/230608QPM-MOU.pdf).
It appeared to EnvA that QPM had no intention of using fugitive emissions from coal mines in their application for the gas pipeline project.
Extract from the EPBC Act:
Division 17—Duty to provide accurate information
489 Providing false or misleading information to obtain approval or permit
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person provides information in response to a requirement or request under Part 7, 8, 9, 13 or 13A; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the information is false or misleading in a material particular.
Note: The fault element in paragraph (1)(b) can be demonstrated by proof of knowledge. See subsection 5.4(4) of the Criminal Code.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by:
(a) imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both, if it is proved the person knew the information was false or misleading; or
(b) imprisonment for a term not more than 1 year, a fine not more than 60 penalty units, or both, if it is proved the person was reckless as to whether the information was false or misleading.
Note: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection.
EnvA - CQ 