2025 Queensland Exploration Scorecard

Queensland Exploration SCORECARD 2025

Contents

Foreword – Welcome to the 15th annual QEC Exploration Scorecard....................................................2

Putting the Scorecard in context – From the Scorecard Working Group Chair.......................................4

1. Scorecard summary – How did Queensland exploration perform in 2024-25?.........................................7

Lead Indicators – Sentiment towards future exploration 2. Resource prospectivity – Queensland’s world-class geology continues to shine.............................10

3. Commodity prices and exploration – a significant driver of exploration activity in Queensland ...13

4. Industry confidence – measuring industry perceptions

4.1 Geoscientific funding – public funding for pre-competitive geoscientific data . ........................ 16

4.2 Regulatory and policy stability – what regulatory changes have affected exploration? ......... 19

4.3 Fraser Institute ranking – how is Queensland seen internationally?..............................................22

4.4 Measurement of operating sentiment – how do Queensland explorers see the outlook?..........24

4.5 Queensland drilling industry sentiment – a second opinion on the health of the industry........38

5. Tenure coverage – how much land was pegged this year?...............................................................40

Lag Indicators – Exploration success breeds future resources success 6. Exploration expenditure – how much was invested in exploration this year? ................................... 44 7. Market capitalisation movements – how have capital markets valued Queensland exploration? ........................................................................................................................46

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

Welcome to the 15th annual QEC Exploration Scorecard Foreword

For 15 years the QEC Scorecard has charted the evolution of Queensland’s exploration sector - its resilience, challenges, and enduring importance to the State’s economy and energy future. This year’s Scorecard reflects a sector that remains active and determined, yet under sustained pressure. Queensland’s rich geology and skilled explorers provide a strong foundation for exploration. The establishment of the Resources Cabinet Committee and the announcement of nine new tenures opened for gas exploration signal the government is more proactively supporting the sector. These steps and streamlining efforts are welcome, recognising that it will take time for reforms to translate into stronger investor confidence given the persistence of barriers, like lengthy approvals. The Scorecard highlights these barriers in 2024-25. Queensland’s total exploration expenditure declined by 14.6%, with coal exploration experiencing the steepest fall at 18%, followed by minerals at 14.1% and petroleum at 12.4%.

When considered against the backdrop of escalating input costs, these reductions suggest an even more pronounced contraction in exploration activity than the expenditure figures alone indicate. These declines will inevitably impact the development of future projects and the resource sector’s economic contribution to the state. The Deloitte Queensland Energy and Resources Index recorded a year-on-year decline, steeper than the broader ASX200, underscoring how global price corrections, particularly in coal, flow through to exploration in Queensland. This financial strain is evident in the operating environment for drilling companies, who report cost inflation, approval delays, and labour shortages continuing to temper near-term activity. The introduction of three new tiers of coal royalty in 2022 continue to significantly impact investor confidence in Queensland’s resources sector.

This erosion of confidence is not confined to coal; it is increasingly evident throughout the entire resources industry. Investor sentiment reflects these pressures: Queensland’s (and incidentally all other Australian jurisdictions) sharp fall in the Fraser Institute Investment Attractiveness Index underscores how costs, timelines, and policy uncertainty diminish competitiveness against both interstate and international peers. Yet, Queensland’s position remains enviable. Its endowment of critical minerals, gas, coal, and greenfield opportunities offers natural advantages in supplying the materials of a lower-emissions future and meeting the energy needs of Australia and our export partners. Expanding geoscience datasets and early signs of regulatory streamlining provides a cautious optimism, echoed in modest improvements across sentiment surveys. The opportunity now lies in conversion. Turning resource potential into bankable projects demands timely approvals, consistent policy, clear pathways to market, and enabling infrastructure.

With sustained government focus and industry collaboration, Queensland can unlock the next wave of globally significant discoveries, translating geology into lasting economic and energy security outcomes. This Scorecard presents a sector at a crossroads - resilient but constrained, optimistic yet wary. The fundamentals remain strong. With renewed commitment and decisive reform, exploration in Queensland can continue to underpin jobs, regional prosperity, and the economic outcomes to build Queensland’s future.

Janette Hewson Chief Executive Officer Queensland Resources Council

Kim Wainwright Chair Queensland Exploration Council

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

Putting the Scorecard into context

From the QEC Exploration Scorecard Working Group Chair

The 2025 Scorecard comes at a time when Queensland’s exploration sector is both showing signs of resilience and facing structural headwinds.

Exploration activity continues across a broad range of commodities, yet the indicators this year point to an increasingly cautious investment climate and a narrowing pipeline of new projects.

Expenditure declined in 2024-25, with total exploration falling 14.6% to $791.7 million. Greenfield mineral activity dropped to 21% of total spend, the lowest share in the Scorecard’s 15-year history. This retreat from new discoveries to brownfield exploration highlights a risk to the long-term project pipeline. Sentiment surveys reinforce this picture. Explorers and drillers cited inflation, environmental approvals, and policy uncertainty as the greatest barriers. Several respondents noted that environmental compliance preparation has in some cases exceeded technical preparation costs. Capital access remains difficult, particularly for juniors. In addition, the expected end of the Collaborative Exploration Initiative (CEI) in 2027 drew disappointment from the sector, emphasising its role in supporting exploration activity. Queensland’s underlying prospectivity remains strong. Survey respondents again rated geology and precompetitive geoscience data as the sector’s most consistent positives. The Geological Survey of Queensland expanded its datasets in 2025 with new airborne geophysical surveys, high-resolution mapping, and drill core collections, all of which lower entry risk and improve exploration targeting. Signs of incremental regulatory progress are also visible. The Resources Cabinet Committee has begun implementing streamlining recommendations, and a review of the land release framework has potential to improve transparency and responsiveness. New gas areas were released for exploration in 2025, signalling government intent to expand supply. Notably, of the negatively rated sentiment categories, the vast majority (10 out of 15) showed improvement compared to last year, even if they remain negative overall. The most significant gains were seen in Departmental assistance, land available for exploration, and approvals. Industry is in turn responding to these changes with higher spending expectations compared to last year. Explorer’s activity levels are expected to grow in the next 12 months with 44% of respondents predicting a greater than 10% increase compared to the 35% expecting a decrease.

Chart A | 12 month outlook for exploration expenditure Exploration spending and activity outlook over the next 12 months

Exploration spending and activity outlook over the next 12 months

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Some decrease (10 - 25%) al decrease (>25%)

Some decrease (10 - 25%) Substantial decrease (>25%) Much the same level

Much the same level Some decrease (10 - 25%) Substantial decrease (>25%)

Substantial increase (> 25%) Some increase (10 to 25%)

Substantial increase (> 25%) Some increase (10 to 25%) Much the same level

Substantial i Some increase (10 to 25%)

2025 Scorecard

2024 Scorecard

2025 Scorecard

2024 Scorecard

2025 Scorecard

2024 Scorecard

Queensland remains well-positioned geologically, but the data in this Scorecard show the increasingly competitive environment for investment attraction in exploration and that the royalty, policy and regulatory environment all influence how Queensland is perceived by investors. The decline in greenfield exploration is particularly concerning because without reinvestment in early-stage discovery, future development opportunities will narrow, and with it, the longer term future of the resources sector. At the same time, a more positive sentiment is emerging across several indicators and demand for critical minerals and secure gas supply is increasing, offering Queensland clear opportunities. Whether these can be realised will depend on maintaining momentum in geoscience, extending successful grant programs, and ensuring approvals and fiscal settings support rather than deter capital deployment.

The sector in 2025 is therefore best described as active but cautious. It retains the ingredients for long-term success, but converting this into new discoveries requires confidence that the policy and regulatory environment facilitates exploration, accelerated resource development and ongoing sustained collaboration between industry and government.

Euan Morton Chair QEC Exploration Scorecard Working Group

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

MEMBERS OF THE QEC SCORECARD WORKING GROUP 2025 Euan Morton (Working Group Chair)

Synergies Economic Consulting Pty Ltd

David Carroll

Tri-Star Group

Jeff Miller

Australian Drilling Industry Association

John Bruce

Bruce Resource Consultants

Kim Wainwright

Queensland Exploration Council and Xplore Resources

Liam Davis

McCullough Robertson

Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development

Matthew Meldon

Nicole Duguid

Queensland Exploration Council

Roger Leaning

Morgans Financial Limited

Sachini Fonseka-Ford

Queensland Exploration Council

Stephen Kelemen

Queensland Exploration Council

Geological Survey of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development

Tony Knight

Structure of the Scorecard The 2025 Queensland Exploration Scorecard covers the financial year from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, maintaining the established structure for a detailed examination of crucial exploration metrics. It underscores that exploration activity is broadly driven by:

• Queensland’s rich resource potential, • The pricing and future outlook of key commodities, • The confidence of both explorers and investors, • The stability of policies and regulations.

Recognising the influence of market dynamics on commodity prices, the Scorecard emphasises lead indicators that are subject to change, notably explorer and investor confidence, alongside the accessibility of fundamental resources vital for advancing resource development and production. Additionally, it incorporates lag indicators assessing tangible exploration accomplishments. Figure 1 below offers an overview of the Scorecard’s structure.

Lead Indicators Factors that drive exploration activity and performance

Lag Indicators Measuring actual success

• Government geoscience (section 4.1) • Regulatory and policy stability (section 4.2) • Operating and investment sentiment (section 4.3 & 4.4)

• Exploration success • Exploration dollars spent (section 6) • Market capitalisation movements (section 7)

• Access to factors of production

• Resource prospectivity (section 2) • Commodity prices (section 3) • Political stability

(Labour and drilling rigs)

• Tenure

performance

Figure 1 | Scorecard Structure

1.0 Scorecard Summary

The Queensland Exploration Sector 2024-25 The performance summary pulls together the key findings from the full exploration Scorecard and assigns one of four ‘traffic light’ ratings to the results. The 15-year history of the Scorecard is available online for viewing. This publication contains the last 7 years of history.

LEGEND

Good No significant impediment

Cause for concern Significant problems

Lead Indicators – Drivers of future activity and performance

2019 2020

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Resources prospectivity and endowment (Section 2) • Queensland is highly endowed with coal, minerals and gas resources Commodity prices (Section 3) • Gold exploration expenditure grew 3%, supported by a record 36% rise in the global gold price, while exploration in all other commodities declined. Copper exploration fell 11%, even as global prices rose 7% and demand fundamentals for electrification remain strong. • The average metallurgical coal benchmark dropped 31% to US$197 a tonne, returning to similar levels seen over the late 2010s. Thermal coal prices followed the trend with a drop of 11% to reach US$120 a tonne. Combined with the pressure of Queensland’s royalty regime, the sector is facing significant challenges. • LNG prices rose by 12%, however petroleum exploration expenditure declined 12% highlighting that regulatory settings and investment uncertainty continue to outweigh supportive pricing signals.

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

2019 2020

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

State Government geoscientific funding and activities (Section 4.1) • The state budget allocated $5.1 million towards accelerating mineral exploration, through targeted geoscience initiatives and data technologies to provide industry ready data. • There is strong support for the Collaborative Exploration Initiative (CEI), calling for its continuation beyond 2027.

• Four successful projects in the Bowen Basin received funding totalling $21 million through the Frontier Gas Exploration Grants Program. Regulatory and policy stability (Section 4.2) • There were several favourable changes to regulatory controls observed in the last 12 months: increased land release for gas and petroleum exploration, release of grants for exploration, the ongoing support of the Queensland Resources Common User Facility (QRCUF), amendments to the Financial Provisioning scheme to ease compliance for juniors and the announcement of the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive. • There are long standing regulatory challenges that face the sector: from complex and duplicative environmental regulation to the unprecedented coal royalty rate that has been extended through 2028–29. Operating and investment sentiment (Section 4.3 & 4.4) • There’s a continuation of the improved sentiment observed last year, indicating the industry is hopeful. • Compared to the outlook measured last year there is a 15 point increase in those who expect to substantially increase exploration spending over the next 12 months. • Whilst 15 out of the 18 sentiment factors are negative, 10 of those improved compared from 2023-24 levels. • Explorers continue to struggle in the face of increased costs and complex environmental regulation. Tenure performance (Section 5) • The Government launched a targeted EOI process to nominate land for exploration including contiguous areas adjacent to existing coal and gas tenures and underexplored vanadium regions like Julia Creek. • A comprehensive review of Queensland’s land release framework was undertaken as part of the 2025 Land Release Review. The suggested changes aligned to industry calls to improve transparency, responsiveness and streamlined applications. The result of this review is not released at time of publication.

Lag Indicators – Exploration success

2019 2020

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Mineral and Coal exploration (Section 6) • In 2024-25 Queensland’s mineral exploration expenditure (including coal) was $505.8 million, decreasing 15.8% from 2023-24. • 231 exploration permits for minerals (EPMs) and one exploration permit for coal (EPC) were granted in the 12 months to June 2025 (in 2023-24 there were 217 EPMs and 1 EPC). • Queensland’s greenfield share of minerals (including coal) exploration declined to 21%, the lowest on record over the past 15 years. Petroleum exploration (Section 6) • There were 9 new exploration areas released for tender and four granted in 2024-25. • In 2024-25 Queensland petroleum exploration expenditure decreased 12% from 2023-24. Market capitalisation movements (Section 7) • Deloitte Queensland Index, which is comprised of around 149 ASX-listed Queensland companies, recorded a decline steeper than the broader ASX200. • The Energy, Metals & Mining index (XJR) has experienced a decline dropping below the Deloitte Queensland Index for the first time since 2021.

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

2.0 Queensland’s Resource Prospectivity

Queensland’s resource-rich landscape continues to underpin exploration activities, offering a diverse range of mineral and energy deposits. Key targets remain base and precious metals, coal, and gas, as underscored by the Queensland Resources Infrastructure Map (Figure 2 on p12), which remains a vital reference for industry stakeholders in translating geological potential into projects. Understanding and converting Queensland’s plentiful resources into viable projects remains critical especially as new data and geoscience tools are progressively rolled out. Queensland’s coal and base-metals sectors retain deep historical significance. The gold rush in Gympie (1867), followed by discoveries at Palmer River, helped establish the state’s economic foundations. The Cloncurry district became a copper source between the 1890s and 1920s, laying the groundwork for Mount Isa Mines. Coal development in the Bowen Basin surged in the 1960s, cementing Queensland’s status as a prime supplier of coking coal. Thermal coal continues to be mined from the Clarence-Moreton and Surat Basins, with the Galilee Basin offering further potential.

Queensland’s coal is a significant economic driver, with the coal sector generating about A$85 billion in value in 2023-24 (supported more than 380,000 jobs), and metallurgical (steelmaking) coal accounting for approximately 80% of that value, suggesting breakthrough contributions to both regional and export-oriented economies 1 . The state also boasts a unique history of petroleum exploration, with gas first discovered near Roma over a century ago and Australia’s first commercial oil at Moonie more than 60 years ago. Gas production in the Cooper and Eromanga Basins (around Ballera and Jackson) and coal seam gas in the Surat (Roma, Dalby) and Bowen Basins remains world-class. Australia and particularly the eastern Australia market is in need of new gas and oil supply. Whilst the Galilee and South Nicholson Basins hold Prospective and Contingent Resources, it is the deep Bowen Basin (Taroom Trough) which is emerging as a potential significant oil & gas resource. Results from drilling, horizontal wells and fraccing over the past year are encouraging with significant flows of oil, gas and condensate having been achieved. Technical and cost challenges are apparent but the industry has shown before its capability and determination to meet such challenges.

1 QRC Coal Factsheet 2023-24

Whilst there is a legislative ban on carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects within Queensland’s portion of the Great Artesian Basin, the geological prospectivity for the deployment of such technology to reduce Queensland’s carbon emissions remains high. The successful start-up and operation of the Moomba CCS project during the year is testament to this, with around 84 MMscf/d (1.7 MTPA) of CO2-e being injected into underground reservoirs at Strzelecki and Marabooka just across the border in South Australia. In recent years, exploration has expanded into minerals critical for the renewable energy transition and low-carbon future. Global demand for such critical minerals continues to build, transforming once overlooked elements into strategic priorities. Australia’s Critical Minerals (comprising 31 minerals vital for modern technology, emissions reduction, advanced manufacturing, and defence) continues to underpin global and national exploration priorities. As global demand surges driven by the energy transition and digital development, critical minerals have become central to international trade agreements and strategic bargaining, with countries seeking secure and diversified supply chains. A recent International Energy Agency report warns that China currently refines around 75% of processing capacity for key minerals, creating significant geopolitical risk and reinforcing the urgency to diversify supply sources 2 .

Australia, and Queensland are particularly well-positioned to respond, owning substantial critical mineral reserves and advancing downstream processing to add value locally. In what the Queensland Premier described as a strategic opportunity amid U.S. tariff dynamics and the Quad partners’ critical minerals initiative 3 , the Queensland 2025 budget allocated $8.5 million to ready the Queensland Resources Common User Facility, a step towards establishing shared processing infrastructure to strengthen local supply chains and regional economic resilience. In parallel with these developments, the government has opened nine new areas (totalling nearly 17,000 km²) for gas exploration across the Cooper-Eromanga and Bowen-Surat basins, aiming to attract investment, boost energy supply, reduce prices, and address the looming east-coast energy shortfall. This move is accompanied by a review of the exploration tender process, reflecting efforts to ensure long- term energy security. Looking through the lens of Queensland’s 15-year QEC Exploration Scorecard, prospectivity may not change dramatically year-to-year, but 2025 has seen a meaningful refresh of data platforms, geoscience initiatives, and exploration policy. Together, these underline Queensland’s enduring potential and evolving capabilities in driving resource discovery, particularly in the critical minerals and gas sectors.

2 IEA : Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 3 state.gov: Joint statement from the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Washington

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

Figure 2 | Queensland Resources Map

Queensland resources Town P i pel i ne

Major road Frei ght rai l Cri ti cal mi neral s prospective project Abandoned mi ne

Petroleum, granted Petroleum, application Mi neral occurrence area (approx. ) Coal-bearing regi on Oi l and gas fiel d

Acti ve mi n i ng project Mi neral s Coal Cri ti cal mi neral s Export faci l i ty

Bauxite Gold Tin

Titanium Zircon

Major resource basi n Surat Basi n

Bowen Basi n Cooper Basi n Gal i l ee Basi n Georgi na Basi n South Nicholson Basi n Mount Isa Provi nce

Antimony Bauxite Cobalt Copper Gold Graphite Indium Iron Lithium Magnetite

Molybdenum Nickel

Coal LNG Mi neral s CopperString 2032 (under development)

Silica Silver Tin

Weipa

Titanium Tungsten Uranium Zinc

REE Rhenium Silver Uranium Vanadium Vanadium Yttrium Zinc

Cobalt Copper Gold Graphite Iron Lead

1 00 Kilometres ±

Molybdenum Phosphorite

Cai rns

200

Karumba

Molybdenum Nickel Scandium

Chromium Cobalt Gold Magnesite

Townsville

Mount Isa

Mackay

Antimony Bauxite Cobalt Copper Gold Iron Lead

Nickel Nickel Silver Tin Titanium Vanadium Zinc Zircon

Rockhampton

Manganese Molybdenum

Gl adstone

Bundaberg

Bri sbane

Produced by Spati al Information | Georesources | Department of Natural Resources and Mi nes, Manufacturing and Regi onal and Rural Development, September 2025. © The State of Queensland, 2025. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Source: GSQ

3.0 Commodity Prices

Commodity prices continue to be a key driver of exploration activity in Queensland. Charts 3.1–3.4 illustrate the relationship between global benchmark prices for gold, copper, coal, and LNG, alongside Queensland exploration expenditure for each commodity from 2002-03 through to 2024-25. After an extraordinary period of volatility, 2024-25 saw a rebalancing across most commodities. LNG and coal prices continued to ease back toward longer-term historical levels, while gold, and copper prices remained elevated. This mixed pricing environment translated into uneven exploration expenditure, with gold the only commodity to record an increase in exploration expenditure, while copper, coal, and petroleum all saw declines. It is important to note that expenditure is an imperfect proxy for activity. Rising costs across several factors including drilling services, equipment, and fuel have inflated exploration budgets in recent years, meaning changes in expenditure do not directly translate to proportional changes in drilling or project activity.

Average global gold price (US$/oz) (LHS)

Queensland gold exploration (A$m) (RHS)

120

3,200

Source: Office of the Chief Economist Resources and Energy Quarterly; ABS 5368.0. CHART 3.1 GLOBAL AVERAGE BENCHMARK GOLD PRICES AND QUEENSLAND EXPLORATION SPEND 2002-25

100

2,700

2,200

1,700

1,200

700

200

Average global gold price (US$/oz) (LHS)

Queensland gold exploration (A$m) (RHS)

3,200

120

In 2024-25, Queensland gold exploration expenditure rose 3% in nominal terms, supported by an extraordinary 36% surge in the global gold price to a record high. The surge reflected strong international demand for gold as a reliable store of value during ongoing global uncertainty, with central banks and investors alike turning to the commodity. The unique combination of monetary and geopolitical pressures reaffirmed gold’s role as a hedge and helped sustain and marginally lift exploration expenditure in Queensland, in contrast to declines across most other commodities. However, given higher operating costs across the sector, the 3% expenditure increase may represent a negligible gain in underlying activity than in previous cycles. 40 60 80 100 1,200 1,700 2,200 2,700

700

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

200

CHART 3.2 GLOBAL AVERAGE BENCHMARK COPPER PRICES AND QUEENSLAND EXPLORATION SPEND 2002-25 Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Resources and Energy Quarterly; FRED;ABS 5368.0

10,000

180

9,000

160

8,000

140

7,000

120

6,000

100

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Average global copper price (US$/t) (LHS)

Queensland copper exploration (A$m) (RHS)

After seven years of consistent growth, Queensland copper exploration expenditure recorded a further decline of 11% in 2024-25, following last year’s contraction of 12%. In the context of rising costs, this reduction in spend is likely to reflect an even sharper moderation in underlying activity. This is despite copper prices edging higher, with the average benchmark increasing by 7% over the year, reflecting tight global supply and strong forward demand. Copper’s role in electrification spanning renewable generation, transmission infrastructure, energy storage, and electric vehicles ensures its strategic significance, but recent exploration momentum in Queensland has clearly moderated. This is reflected across all states with Australian copper exploration expenditure falling 15.1% in 2024-25.

CHART 3.3 GLOBAL AVERAGE BENCHMARK COAL PRICES AND COAL EXPLORATION SPEND IN QUEENSLAND 2002-25 Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Resources and Energy Quarterly; ABS; McCloskey.

800

450

400

700

350

600

300

500

250

400

200

300

150

200

100

Thermal coal price (US$/t) (LHS) Metallurgical coal price (US$/t) (LHS) Queensland coal exploration (A$m) (RHS)

In 2024–25, Queensland’s coal exploration expenditure fell sharply by 18% amid steep declines in benchmark prices - thermal coal dropped 11% and metallurgical coal 31% - returning to levels last seen between 2010-11 and 2016-19 after the COVID-19 and Ukraine conflict highs. This price correction, combined with rising costs, reduced investor confidence and exploration activity, signals a contraction across the sector. The downturn has been compounded by Queensland’s coal royalty regime, with some projects forced to scale back or enter care and maintenance. While designed to capture windfalls in strong markets, the system has magnified financial strain during the current downturn, undermining industry viability and investor confidence in Queensland’s resources sector.

CHART 3.4 GLOBAL AVERAGE BENCHMARK LNG PRICES AND QUEENSLAND PETROLEUM EXPLORATION SPEND 2002-25 Source: FRED; OCE; ABS 8412.0 Note: Petroleum exploration expenditure includes appraisal activities but excludes developmental and production activities.

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Asia LNG price ($US/MMbtu) (LHS)

Queensland petroleum exploration (A$m) (RHS)

In 2024-25, Queensland petroleum exploration expenditure declined by 12%, reversing the growth seen in the previous year. This came despite a rise in global LNG benchmark prices and domestic gas spot prices, which look to be stabilising after the volatility of the early 2020’s years. The softer exploration response suggests that factors beyond pricing continue to weigh on investment decisions. In addition, elevated exploration costs mean that expenditure levels may understate the degree of caution shown by investors in committing to new activity. While attractive prices and ready access to a gas market ordinarily support exploration, investors appear cautious about committing capital in the current environment. Notably, Australia’s recent domestic gas price cap of AU$12 per gigajoule (around US$7.9 per MMBtu), which is well below global spot benchmarks, highlights how policy interventions can shape market conditions and undermine local investment signals. Anticipated domestic gas supply shortfalls and policy discussions around energy security may provide future impetus, but in 2024-25 these signals were not enough to offset broader concerns. As a result, Queensland’s petroleum exploration activity remains subdued compared to historic peaks, even as LNG maintains a crucial role in export markets and gas in the state’s energy mix.

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

4.1 State government

geoscientific funding and exploration activities

The Geological Survey of Queensland (GSQ) serves as the steward of geoscience knowledge and data in the state. GSQ collects, manages, and disseminates geoscience data, information, and guidance related to Queensland’s mineral and energy resources and their potential. This involves various geoscience projects and industry reporting requirements. GSQ’s efforts ensure responsible exploration of Queensland’s mineral and energy resources through data and insights. The GSQ also has a role in attracting investments to Queensland’s resources sector through: 1. Improving the global understanding of Queensland’s resource potential, 2. Facilitating innovative exploration via grants and the Collaborative Exploration Initiative (CEI), 3. Pioneering the transition to a data-driven exploration ecosystem, 4. Informing resource planning and beneficial development policy initiatives. In 2025, GSQ has released several new geoscience datasets and tools to support exploration. Five new airborne geophysical surveys are now available through the GSQ Open Data Portal, providing enhanced insights into resource-rich regions.

Additionally, new high-resolution airborne geophysical data for North Queensland and Georgetown has been used in projects which are, improving geological mapping and exploration targeting in those regions. GSQ also published a substantial reference collection of mineral system samples from more than 700 drillholes across 110+ deposits, with associated datasets, to aid deposit characterization. Under the New Economy Minerals Initiative , GSQ is actively deploying $13 million in funding for projects to delineate and quantify Queensland’s potential for emerging-technology minerals. This work also encompassed the Circular Economy in Mining project (Action 5 of the Queensland Resources Industry Development Plan (QRIDP)), delivered through the Bowen Basin Pit to Port Circular Consortium with GSQ funding support, which extended well beyond the scope of the public- facing outputs and highlighted opportunities for circularity in mining value chains. The Queensland Government CEI is one of the most successful grants of its kind in Australia, and since its inception more than 17 years ago it has achieved a technical success rate of approximately 65%. It is set to end in 2027 with no extension expected, drawing disappointment from the industry.

In this year’s sentiment survey, respondents ranked the following three Government initiatives as providing the most benefit to their operations: • CEI and Collaborative Development Program, • Release of geoscience data from the GSQ, • Zero rent for exploration permits for minerals. Respondents consistently praised the CEI grants for supporting high-risk greenfield exploration, particularly for junior and emerging miners, and expressed concern that funding has not been identified in the budget past 2027, describing it as a significant blow to industry confidence and a signal of declining government support. Many called for the CEI to be continued beyond 2027, highlighting its role in mitigating land access risks and enabling exploration progress. Respondents expressed strong appreciation for the GSQ and the value of precompetitive data, highlighting its role in supporting exploration through collaboration, open file access, and geoscience insights.

Several noted that GSQ’s engagement and datasets, such as regional geophysical data and core library studies, were helpful in identifying targets and reducing exploration risk, especially in greenfield areas. There was a clear call to maintain and expand these initiatives to continue enabling data-driven exploration across Queensland. Chart 4.1 provides insights into the expenditure of geoscientific funding by the State Government, encompassing various programs. The administration of $20.9 million through the Frontier Gas Exploration program in 2024-25 has significantly contributed to a spike in this year’s results. Funding was awarded to Comet Ridge, Denison Gas, QPM Energy, and State Gas Limited to fast- track the exploration of new gas reserves. It supports Queensland’s efforts to secure reliable gas supplies and represents the highest Government financial support for exploration.

CHART 4.1 TOTAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF QUEENSLAND EXPENDITURE 2017-25

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

2024-25

Geological Survey of Queensland base Strategic Resources Exploration Program GSQ Lodgement Portal upgrades Collaborative Development Program

Future Resources Program

New Economy Minerals Initiative (inc CEI) Frontier Basin Gas Exploration Grants

UQ Research Alliance

Source: Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development

Note: From 2017-18, an internal restructure of the agency responsible for georesoruces meant all IT-related resources were moved to the department’s state-wide business systems team. This restructure accounts for the drop in base funding within GSQ, noting however that the total funding and budgeted FTEs all stayed on (at the time) to service the Geological Survey.

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

4.2 Regulatory and policy stability

KEY

Favourable reduction in regulatory control occurred in that year

This section provides an annual snapshot of the year-to-year regulatory changes over the last seven years (half of the Scorecard’s history). The perception of the regulatory change is deemed through consultation with industry stakeholders and policy advisors. Table 4.2 aims to summarise complex regulatory changes for 2024-25 as they affect exploration projects.

No change in regulatory control occurred in that year

Unfavourable increase in regulatory control occurred in that year

TABLE 4.2 CHANGE IN REGULATORY CONTROLS 2024-25

YEAR TO JUNE FOR EACH RESPECTIVE YEAR

TYPES OF EXPLORATION CONTROLS IN QUEENSLAND

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

A. Foundation requirements for exploration - processes that most holders of exploration permits must meet on application and continuously through the life of the tenure: Cultural heritage Environmental authority

• The 2023 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act (EPOLA) continue to negatively impact applications by imposing stricter conditions. • The Department is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Application for mineral and coal exploration tenure • The land release and tender process is currently under review.

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

YEAR TO JUNE FOR EACH RESPECTIVE YEAR

TYPES OF EXPLORATION CONTROLS IN QUEENSLAND Application for oil and gas exploration tenure • Four recipients benefited from the Frontier Gas Exploration program ($21 million fund) in 2025. • A call for petroleum and gas tenders was released in May 2025, including 9 areas in Queensland’s Cooper/Eromanga and Bowen/Surat Basins as part of the Queensland Exploration Program (QEP). Landowner compensation Native Title considerations • Australian Law Reform Commission proposals for Futures Acts/Native Title could pose increased delays in approvals if they are accepted, due end of the December 2025. Rehabilitation obligations • The Department is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Act including the Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plans. Renewal of exploration rights Administrative improvements in processing applications. • The newly developed Resources Cabinet Committee has been implementing QRC’s streamlining recommendations which is assisting administrative arrangements. Queensland Resources Common User Facility (QRCUF) was first announced in November 2021and continues to receive support. • QRCUF is being developed to support the development of commercial projects,

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

promote investment in mineral manufacturing opportunities and enable supply chains security. B. Gateway controls on exploration – policies that present barriers to tenure in some areas: Land regulated as a “Restricted Area”

• Intensified protection of the Lake Eyre Basin rivers and introduced specific bans on oil and gas exploration. Permanent ban on carbon capture and storage in the Great Artesian Basin. Land otherwise off limits for environmental reasons (e.g. National Parks and strategic environmental areas) • Changes in legislation have increased the public notification requirements for major amendments to resource exploration permits, which may slow down approvals in sensitive areas.

YEAR TO JUNE FOR EACH RESPECTIVE YEAR

TYPES OF EXPLORATION CONTROLS IN QUEENSLAND Environmental Authority applications must be refused for activities in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area which will or may result in the release of fine sediment or dissolved organic nitrogen to catchment waters. Land subject to other third-party interests (e.g. overlapping tenure regime creates a growing risk of land use conflicts with renewable projects). • The Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 , passed in June, introduces new obligations

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

for renewable energy projects. The changes may increase complexity, create overlap with existing resource obligations, and undermine coexistence between renewables and exploration/mining. C. Conditioning controls on exploration - policies that impose additional conditions:

A five-year deferral of rent was announced in 2023 on all mineral tenures as one of the initiatives in the Critical Mineral Strategy. D. Impacts on production (indirectly relevant to exploration): Financial Provisioning Scheme (FPS) framework • Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Amendment Regulation 2025 raised the minimum estimated rehabilitation cost requiring risk assessment under FPS from $100,000 to $10 million, easing compliance for juniors. Mid-tier and major operators may face increased assessment fees and higher provisioning requirements. Three new tiers of coal royalty commenced in 2022. • Concerns with investment certainty in Queensland continue to be expressed across all commodity types. The 2025–26 Queensland Budget’s forward estimates, imply a continuation through 2028–29. The Queensland Critical Mineral Strategy launched in 2023. • In the 2024-25 Commonwealth Budget, the government announced its Future Made in Australia package which includes support for investment in critical minerals processing in Australia through the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive (CMPTI).

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

4.3 Fraser Institute’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2024

On 22 July 2025, the Fraser Institute released its Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2024. This survey evaluates global jurisdictions through an Investment Attractiveness Index, determined by policy factors and mineral resource perception. This year’s survey received 350 responses, a notable increase from the 293 responses received for the 2023 survey. The Fraser Institute conducted the survey between August 2024 and December 2024, approximately six months prior to the QEC sentiment survey. This year no Australian jurisdiction appears in the top 10 on the survey’s Investment Attractiveness Index. All the Australian jurisdictions decreased their Investment Attractiveness and Policy Perception Index scores compared with 2023. Queensland ranked 39th out of 82 jurisdictions globally for investment attractiveness marking a severe decline from its 13th place ranking in 2023. This result places Queensland fourth among Australian jurisdictions, behind Western Australia (17th), South Australia (35th), and Northern Territory (38th). Our Oceania neighbour in New Zealand has experienced the opposite trend and climbed from 43rd jurisdiction to 12th, marking the first time they have outperformed any state in Australia for investment attraction.

This improvement is likely attributed to recent government initiatives that have expedited permitting processes and reduced regulatory barriers which highlights New Zealand’s pro-business reforms in the mining sector. The Investment Attractiveness Index is calculated based on two primary components: the Policy Perception Index (PPI) and the Best Practices Mineral Potential Index. The PPI accounts for 40% of the overall score and evaluates the policy attractiveness of the surveyed jurisdictions based on responses related to government policies impacting investment decisions. After an improved result last year, this year Queensland’s PPI score declined to reach its lowest level in the last 8 years: 79.3 to 62.9, resulting in a drop from 23rd to 37th out of 82 jurisdictions. According to the Fraser Institute, “respondents expressed increased concerns over uncertainty concerning disputed land claims (+29 points), uncertainty concerning the administration, interpretation and enforcement of existing regulations (+25 points), and regulatory duplication and inconsistencies (+22 points)”. Queensland ranks fourth among Australian jurisdictions on policy, trailing Western Australia (18th), South Australia (30th), and Northern Territory (35th).

The Best Practices Mineral Potential Index gauges how conducive a region’s geology is to attracting exploration investment. Queensland’s mineral potential score declined from 77.4 to 61.4 in 2024, resulting in a steep fall in ranking from 12th to 29th globally. Queensland ranks third among Australian jurisdictions on this measure, behind Western Australia (13th), and Northern Territory (28th). These results are disappointing for Queensland and Australia more broadly.

The sharp decline in Queensland’s global standing and the absence of any Australian jurisdiction in the top 10 signal a concerning erosion of investor confidence in our policy environment and geological competitiveness. It is imperative that government’s take action to restore their reputation, by addressing regulatory uncertainty, streamlining approvals, and reaffirming their commitment to supporting exploration and mining investment.

CHART 4.3 FRASER INSTITUTE ANNUAL SURVEY OF MINING COMPANIES 2009-24 Fraser Insitute Annual Survey of Mining Companies: 2009 to 2024

18 19

31 31

37 39

45 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Policy perception index

Minerals best practice index

Investment attractiveness Index

EXPLORATION SCORECARD 2025

4.4 QEC’S

Measurement of Operating Sentiment

As part of the 2025 Queensland Exploration Sentiment Survey, companies were asked to assess the extent to which various factors within 18 categories influenced the success of their commercial objectives in Queensland for 2024-25. Companies were also required to provide parallel assessments for their other jurisdictions outside Queensland, both in Australia and overseas, where they conduct most activity. To maintain consistency for year-to-year comparisons, most sentiment categories, evaluated in the Scorecard have remained unchanged since its inception in 2011. In recent years, new categories have been incorporated into the survey in response feedback and or economic factors. In 2019, the Scorecard introduced a category focused on assessing sentiment regarding Queensland’s royalty and tax rates. In 2021, another category was introduced, specifically addressing sentiment related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The sentiment measurement for COVID-19 concluded with the 2023 Scorecard. Last year a new category labelled “Approvals” was included following qualitative feedback in previous years that the approval process was a challenge. The impacts of policy uncertainty across the Commonwealth and State impact different sectors differently and accordingly, we continue to consider each separately.

The sentiment survey for this year gathered responses from 53 companies engaged in exploration and drilling activities within Queensland. These companies collectively declared 58 exploration targets, reflecting that several respondents were involved in multiple exploration endeavours. In the 2024-25 survey, the most prevalent exploration targets in Queensland included critical minerals (24%), base or precious metals (34%), unconventional oil and gas (14%), metallurgical coal (12%) and thermal coal (5%). Other exploration targets in Queensland encompassed conventional oil and gas, bauxite, industrial minerals, and carbon capture and storage reservoirs. Out of the 41 exploration responses received, 14 companies reported conducting exploration activities in other jurisdictions as well as Queensland. The sentiment for each category were consolidated into a single value, with each response assigned a specific weight. “Strongly positive” (or negative) responses received a weighting of 1 (-1), “positive” (or negative) responses were assigned a weighting of 0.5 (-0.5), while “not at all” responses were accorded a weighting of 0. For a more detailed explanation and a worked example, please click here.

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online