JULIMAR STATE FOREST: ARE WE OPENING THE DOOR TO DECADES OF MINING?
Chalice, Alcoa, Western Yilgarn and the unanswered questions about Gonneville's future-proofed infrastructure.
October 2026 | Gonneville Be Gone — Investigations
What if the proposed Gonneville Mine is only the beginning?
While Chalice Mining seeks approval for an open-pit mine on its own farmland, the surrounding Julimar region remains subject to extensive mineral exploration and development interests.
Chalice retains exploration interests extending into Julimar State Forest. Alcoa holds mineral rights over more than a quarter of the forest, and Western Yilgarn is advancing a substantial bauxite resource in the surrounding district.
Now, Chalice's own documents raise another serious question.
Could the infrastructure being established for Gonneville make future mining across the Julimar region easier and more economically attractive?
This is not a claim that these companies have a coordinated mining plan. It is a question about the long-term consequences of approving major industrial infrastructure before its potential future uses are fully understood.
CHALICE'S AMBITIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN LIMITED TO ONE DEPOSIT
In October 2022, Chalice told the ASX that its Gonneville discovery formed part of the much larger Julimar Complex, extending more than 30 kilometres northwards.
The company confirmed that the geological system continued beneath Julimar State Forest at depth.
More significantly, Chalice explained that future discoveries along the complex could add value to Gonneville or potentially justify separate mining developments.
That was the company's own stated strategy.
Four years later, Chalice continues to retain exploration interests associated with the wider Julimar Complex.
Its September 2026 Annual Report also confirms that the proposed 23-year open-pit development uses only approximately half of Gonneville's current mineral resource, with a future transition to underground mining considered likely.
Yet Chalice is now seeking to remove underground mining from the Gonneville proposal undergoing environmental assessment.
The distinction is important.
Removing underground mining from today's assessment does not eliminate the company's longer-term development opportunities. Nor does it establish that those opportunities will be pursued.
But it raises a legitimate question about whether government is considering the full potential lifespan and future development implications of Gonneville.
THE FUTURE-PROOFING QUESTION
One of the most revealing statements appeared in Chalice's June 2025 ASX announcement.
The company confirmed it was engaging with State and Commonwealth governments about potential common-user infrastructure options and funding support.
In July 2026, Chalice again referred to government engagement concerning potential multi-user infrastructure.
This deserves far more scrutiny than it has received publicly.
Who were the potential additional users? What infrastructure was being considered? And could any of those arrangements eventually support mining developments beyond Gonneville?
Chalice's December 2025 Pre-Feasibility Study adds another dimension.
It proposes a 500 mm steel water pipeline stretching approximately 63 kilometres from Alkimos to Gonneville, designed around Stage 2 processing requirements.
The pipeline has a stated maximum design flow of 11 gigalitres annually.
That figure does not establish unused capacity for other developments. Engineering allowances and operating requirements must be considered.
But the community deserves to know whether the pipeline has been designed exclusively for Gonneville's planned operations, whether additional capacity could be made available, and whether future third-party access has been contemplated.
The electricity infrastructure raises similar questions.
Chalice proposes a new 132 kV connection and has examined a possible later connection to Western Power's planned Clean Energy Link network.
Meanwhile, substantial new water and power infrastructure, processing facilities and transport arrangements would become established across the region.
Once built, those facilities could influence the economics of future developments.
Are we approving infrastructure solely for the mine currently being assessed, or creating assets that could eventually service a much larger mining district?
That question has particular significance for the Chittering families whose properties lie within Chalice's proposed infrastructure corridor.
ALCOA ALREADY HAS A FOOTHOLD IN JULIMAR
Alcoa's interests are not hypothetical.
In its 2024 response to the petition seeking national park protection for Julimar, the WA Government confirmed that Alcoa's State Agreement covers approximately 7,580 hectares of Julimar State Forest.
That represents more than a quarter of the forest.
Alcoa's broader mineral lease extends to 2045 under its current arrangements, although further mining would remain subject to applicable approvals and restrictions.
There is no publicly confirmed Alcoa proposal to mine Julimar State Forest, and no evidence that Alcoa intends to follow Chalice into the area.
But its existing rights mean the question of future bauxite mining cannot simply be dismissed.
The government itself identified Alcoa's interests and other exploration tenements as complications for permanently protecting the entire forest.
AND THE MINING INTERESTS CONTINUE TO GROW
Western Yilgarn's Julimar West Bauxite Project introduces another potential source of regional mining pressure.
Its September 2026 Annual Report identifies an inferred resource of approximately 168 million tonnes of bauxite, alongside land-access agreements secured for further investigations.
The identified resource areas are not established as being within Julimar State Forest, and there is no approved mine.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate that substantial mineral development interests extend across the wider Julimar–Bindoon landscape.
Each company may pursue separate projects through separate approval processes.
But the combined effects on regional roads, waterways, wildlife habitat and surrounding communities cannot necessarily be understood by examining every proposal in isolation.
WHO IS LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE?
The WA Environmental Protection Authority's February 2026 guidance recognises the importance of cumulative environmental impact assessment.
The challenge is ensuring that reasonably foreseeable development pressures are properly considered before decisions are made.
For Julimar, that means asking whether Gonneville's infrastructure could facilitate subsequent developments, what future uses have been contemplated, and what safeguards would prevent expansion beyond the approved scope without appropriate scrutiny.
It also means examining potential cumulative pressures on threatened wildlife, including Carnaby's black cockatoos and other species dependent on the connected forests, woodlands and waterways of the region.
The Julimar Conservation and Forest Alliance (JCAFA) has spent years documenting the forest's exceptional conservation values and campaigning for its permanent protection as a national park.
Separately, the Hon Jess Beckerling MLC, of the WA Greens, is pursuing statewide legislation to ban mining in native forests.
This raises an important question for Julimar: would such legislation also protect forests already covered by mineral rights, including those held by Chalice and Alcoa?
Readers can learn more about the proposal and participate in the campaign here:
WA Greens — Ban Forest Mining Campaign and Petition
Until the legal position of existing mining rights is resolved, Julimar's long-term protection remains uncertain.
But until enforceable protections are established, Julimar's long-term future remains uncertain.
THE DECISIONS WE MAKE NOW COULD SHAPE THE NEXT 50 YEARS
Gonneville is presented as a staged open-pit development on farmland.
But the company's own documents establish continuing exploration interests, potential future underground mining, and investigations into infrastructure arrangements extending beyond a simple single-user model.
No future mine in Julimar State Forest has been established by those documents, and any such proposal would require its own approvals.
Nevertheless, the consequences of constructing long-life infrastructure today deserve proper examination now.
Before government commits the region to a major water pipeline, electricity corridor and associated industrial development, it should explain whether that infrastructure could facilitate mining beyond the currently assessed Gonneville project.
Julimar State Forest should not face decades of progressively increasing mining pressure simply because the wider consequences of today's decisions were never properly examined.
The question is no longer just what Chalice wants to build now.
It is what that infrastructure could make possible tomorrow — and whether government has adequately considered the consequences before allowing it to proceed.