Water

Water is integral to what we do and vital to the longevity of BHP. We depend on access to water and cannot operate without it.

Access to safe, clean water is a basic human right and essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Our Water Stewardship Position Statement outlines BHP’s vision for a water secure world by 2030, which is aligned with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals. This is a world where water resources are conserved and resilient so they can continue to support healthy ecosystems, maintain cultural and spiritual values and sustain economic growth; where the human right to safe and accessible water and the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples are realised and upheld; and where water governance is effective and beneficial, ensuring communities and ecosystems thrive for future generations.

Water Stewardship Position Statement

In FY2019, we developed our Water Stewardship Position Statement that expresses BHP's commitment to and advocacy for water stewardship.

Read the position statement

Our ambition

Our approach and position

Governance and oversight

person looking at screens with information

Engagement, disclosure and performance

Risk

Case studies

Our ambition

Our vision for water is outlined in our Water Stewardship Position Statement and is supported by our Water Stewardship Strategy and our goals and targets. Our approach to water stewardship is represented in the figure below. Each element of our approach is discussed on this webpage.

The Position Statement was developed following broad internal and external engagement and is aligned to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and other initiatives, such as the UN Global Compact's CEO Water Mandate (CEO Water Mandate) and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) Water Position Statement. Our Position Statement describes the challenges facing fresh and marine waters across the globe and seeks to reinforce that it is everyone’s responsibility to take action together. Our approach to realising this vision includes taking action to improve water management within BHP and catalyse actions to strengthen water governance beyond our operated assets.

Our approach and position

Our vision in our Water Stewardship Position Statement is supported by our Water Stewardship Strategy which was adopted in FY2017 to improve our management of water, increase transparency and contribute to the resolution of shared water challenges. The strategy was reviewed in FY2022 to ensure it remains effective and continues to align with ambitions of our business and society. The review resulted in refinements to our FY2017 strategy and corresponding minor updates to our Water Stewardship Position Statement. Our strategy’s pillars are shown below.

Setting targets on critical metrics helps us focus our efforts, monitor progress and hold ourselves accountable. We have had water-specific public targets for more than 15 years. These have evolved from targets that were set from the top down, based on intensity metrics (water used per tonne of product), to a combination of risk-based targets and absolute volume reduction targets to regional context-based water targets (CBWTs).

Over the period of FY2018 to FY2022 we had a public water-related sustainability target to reduce FY2022 freshwater withdrawal¹ by 15 per cent from adjusted FY2017 levels across our operated assets. The FY2018 to FY2022 target was exceeded with a 29 per cent reduction of freshwater withdrawal from adjusted FY20217 levels across our operated assets.

We have continued our efforts to refine our approach to target and goal setting. Since FY2020, BHP have engaged third parties (e.g. universities) to undertake Water Resource Situational Analysis (WRSAs)² to establish a collective view on the shared water challenges within the regions or catchments where we operate. These WRSAs have shown that while minimisation of freshwater withdrawal will remain important for us and other stakeholders, in some of the regions where we operate freshwater withdrawal is not the key water-related risk or challenge for the region. In addition, during the FY2018 to FY2022 period, there was a focus on reducing the use of fresh water and shifting the source of water to lower-quality sources. This has increased our use of non-freshwater sources in some of our regions.

In our Water Stewardship Position Statement, we committed to developing CBWTs, with the aim to improve our internal BHP water management and contribute to the collective benefit and shared approaches to water management in the regions where we operate. Informed by catchment-scale risk assessments and WRSAs, in FY2023 we released our first suite of asset-level CBWTs, which will apply for seven years until FY2030.³

Due to the regional nature of water challenges our CBWTs recognise that water challenges vary by location due to physical and social differences.⁴ For example in our Chilean assets, where our water is now predominately sourced from desalination, marine protection and efficiency of water use are key water challenges. The CBWTs are intended to contribute to more effectively addressing the shared water challenges in our operating regions and were informed by our catchment knowledge and our WRSAs. We will continue to test the relevance of the CBWTs and milestones as the collective understanding of the catchments where we operate grows. More information on the WRSAs and CBWTs can be found at Shared water challenges and in the below Performance section.

We set a longer-term goal in FY2017 to collaborate to enable integrated water resource management in all catchments where we operate by FY2030. We reviewed this longer-term goal during the development of our new 2030 goals and have incorporated our longer-term water goal into our Healthy environment goal. Our 2030 Healthy environment goal is supported by our CBWTs, as they are expected to contribute to the protection and or restoration of water-dependent ecosystems in the vicinity of our operated assets.

Footnotes

¹Withdrawal is defined as water withdrawn and intended for use (in accordance with the ICMM guidance). Fresh water is defined as waters other than seawater, wastewater from third parties and hypersaline groundwater. Freshwater withdrawal also excludes entrained water that would not be available for other uses. These exclusions were made to align with the target’s intent to reduce the use of freshwater sources that are subject to competition from other users or the environment. The FY2017 baseline data has been adjusted to account for the materiality of the worker strike affecting water withdrawals at Escondida in FY2017 and improvements to water balance methodologies at WAIO and BMA in FY2019, which included alignment of water balances to ICMM guidance. Discontinued operations (Onshore US-operated assets and Petroleum), BHP Mitsui Coal (BMC) and non-operated joint ventures were excluded.

²Water Resource Situational Analysis (WRSA) is a holistic assessment of the water situation where an asset operates. The process is designed to describe the water challenges that stakeholders share and the opportunities for collective action to address those challenges. The WRSA is prepared by a credible third party and draws on publicly available information and direct stakeholder input. Within a defined area that includes the water resources that BHP interacts, each WRSA includes assessment of:

the sustainability of the volume and quality of the water resources, taking into account interactions of all other parties and any related environmental, social or cultural values and climate change forecasts
the state of water infrastructure, water access, sanitation and hygiene of local communities
the environmental health of the water catchments that feed the water resources taking into account the extent of vegetation, runoff, and any conservation of the area
external water governance arrangements and their effectiveness

³CBWTs are intended to apply at the asset-level for our operated assets. Due to the previous divestment review of NSWEC, along with CBWTs for our legacy assets in the United States and Canada, CBWTs for NSWEC and at least one legacy asset area are planned to be released in FY2025. BHP plans to review the suitability of the existing Olympic Dam WRSA and CBWTs during FY2025, following the creation of the Copper South Australia asset, inclusive of Olympic Dam, Carrapateena and Prominent Hill. We expect to review the need to revise or create CBWTs when there are substantial changes to our portfolio or one of our projects moves into the operational phase. CBWTs are intended to apply at the asset-level for our operated assets. Due to the previous divestment review of NSWEC, along with CBWTs for our legacy assets in the United States and Canada, CBWTs for NSWEC and at least one legacy asset area are planned to be released in FY2025. BHP plans to review the suitability of the existing Olympic Dam WRSA and CBWTs during FY2025, following the creation of the Copper South Australia asset, inclusive of Olympic Dam, Carrapateena and Prominent Hill. We expect to review the need to revise or create CBWTs when there are substantial changes to our portfolio or one of our projects moves into the operational phase. The Western Australia Nickel context-based water targets do not include the West Musgrave Project.

⁴UN Global Compact CEO Water Mandate, Pacific Institute, CDP, The Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute, WWF, UNEPDHI Partnership Centre for Water and Environment, 2019. Setting Site Water Targets Informed by Catchment Context: A Guide for Companies.

Governance, engagement, disclosure and performance

Governance and oversight
For information on the role of the BHP Board in overseeing our approach to and delivery on sustainability refer to the Sustainability approach webpage.

We use our Water Position Statement, our water stewardship strategy and our standards (including our Environment Global Standard, Closure and Legacy Global Standard and internal water management standard) to manage water at BHP. Each of our operated assets has assigned responsibilities for its key water management activities and this is a requirement of our mandatory minimum performance requirements for water management.

Governance of our water activities is essential as water is integral to our business and vital to the longevity of BHP. We cannot operate without it. We use water in many ways, including but not limited to:

extracting it for activities including ore processing, dust suppression, ecosystem irrigation and processing mine tailings

managing it to access ore through dewatering (extraction of water from below the water table to allow access to ore) and to prevent mining waste contaminants leaving our legacy assets (legacy assets refers to those BHP-operated assets, or part thereof, located in the Americas that are in the closure phase)

providing drinking water and sanitation facilities for employees and townships

discharging water back to the receiving environment

interacting with marine water resources through our port facilities

utilising marine water for desalination

For a more detailed example of how we use water in our operated assets refer to our Olympic Dam case study.

We recognise our responsibility to effectively manage and have governance over our water interactions and avoid or minimise our adverse impacts on water resources. Effective water stewardship must begin within our operated assets. From there, we can more credibly collaborate with others toward solutions to shared water challenges.

We also recognise the importance of working with others to enable more effective water governance and stewardship across the communities, regions and countries where we operate.

Responsible water management will ultimately make BHP more resilient and will contribute to enduring environmental and social value.

We must manage a variety of water risks and challenges. Water challenges faced by BHP may include water scarcity or high variability in water supply due to climatic conditions or cumulative use or impacts within a catchment. These challenges need to be managed appropriately to avoid or minimise actual and potential adverse impacts and support positive impacts to the environment, communities and BHP’s ongoing viability. We seek to identify and assess opportunities to reduce stress on water resources from our operations and to collaborate with others on challenges and opportunities such as water scarcity or high variability in water supply.

Our Environment Global Standard and water management standard outline specific governance requirements for water, in addition to the governance mechanisms and processes that are discussed for environment on the Environment webpage.

BHP has established cross-functional teams to implement our approach to water stewardship at Group and regional levels. These teams include representatives from Planning; Engineering; Strategy; Environment; Water and Closure; Community; Corporate Affairs; Operations; Risk; and Legal.

Engagement

In addition to regular stakeholder engagement processes, we undertake specific stakeholder engagement activities related to water stewardship. The following table outlines the key stakeholders engaged, how they were engaged and the topics on which they were engaged.

Stakeholder

Forum / Topic

Various local stakeholders in our operating regions, including community groups, Indigenous groups, government (local and regional), industry members and representative bodies, and research institutes.

Engagement through various means to develop the WRSAs in our operating regions. We asked stakeholders what they value about water resources, and their views of the challenges and collective action opportunities to preserve those values.

ICMM

BHP is a member of the Water Working Group (WWG) and sub-project committees. We actively support the identification and completion of the WWG’s priority projects, which currently focus on collective catchment management, operational water management and water reporting.

CEO Water Mandate

BHP is a signatory to the CEO Water Mandate and member of the Steering Committee. We support the CEO Water Mandate’s program and particularly promote the priorities for broader regional spread (e.g. into Asa Pacific and South America), greater involvement of resource industries, linking water with climate change and biodiversity programs and pragmatic approaches.

Since FY2022, we have partnered to release the Water resilience Assessment Framework (WRAFD) and progress CBWTs with an approach based on that of the CEO Water Mandate (see Water Stewardship Strategy progress table for more information).

Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)

BHP is an active member of the MCA’s Water Working Group. Through the MCA we contributed to the Australian Government’s reviewed of the National Water Initiative and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Water roundtables

Engagement of conservation groups, thought leaders and policy-makers to provide an opportunity for input into our water stewardship program and direction. Roundtables held annually prior to COVID-19, which limited face-to-face contact. We plan to re-instate this roundtable and extend the scope to cover nature more broadly.

Water-related conferences

Ongoing participation and presentations in water-related meetings and conferences such as, Water in Mining, Closure, UN water conference, with the intent to share experience and learning, and gain insight in to current and future focus areas.

Disclosure
Our water disclosures here and in the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 6.10 - Environment and nature have been prepared predominately pursuant to the ICMM Water Reporting: Good practice guide (2nd Edition) (2021) (ICMM guidance) minimum disclosure standard, which is an international water accounting framework that enables comparable water data across the mining and minerals sector.

Our water reporting also considers other relevant frameworks. BHP is a signatory to the CEO Water Mandate and our disclosures here and in the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review serve as BHP’s Communication of Progress against the core elements of the CEO Water Mandate. Our reporting is also consistent with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). For more information on how this webpage meets the GRI standard refer to our ESG Standards and Databook.

We have reported our water withdrawals and discharges and had water-specific public targets in place for more than 15 years since the establishment of the Minerals Council of Australia's Water Accounting Framework (WAF).

We updated our reporting in FY2019 to align with the ICMM ‘A Practical Guide to Consistent Water Reporting’, and since FY2022 have aligned our reporting with the updated ICMM guidance, ‘Water Reporting: Good Practice Guide (2nd Edition)’.

The ICMM guidance and the WAF make use of a site water balance to establish a water account. The water balance approach is commonly used in hydrological studies to determine the flow dynamics of a system. A site water balance is a simplified water account where all water components are classified and those with common characteristics (e.g. consumed via evaporation) are aggregated to the highest possible level. The use of a water balance allows the generation of consistent site metrics for external reporting and provides a tool for effective water management for the mining sector. Site water balances are a live management tool that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

A generalised water balance ‘equation’ requires water inputs to equal the outputs plus any change in storage. That is: water withdrawals/inputs = water discharges + water consumption +/- change in water storage.

Water balance information has a variety of sources with differing degrees of accuracy. Following the WAF, information is classified as of high accuracy when measured directly or there are simulations with good accuracy over many reporting periods, or a forced balance in flows, medium accuracy when modelled or simulated using estimates based on historical data or coefficients. Information is classified as low accuracy when estimated or simulated using general coefficients.

We recognise water balances contain a degree of uncertainty and, over a given period, the reported withdrawal may not be in balance with the sum of discharge, consumption and net storage change. The ICMM guidance requires that, at a site level, the delta storage derived by mathematical balance broadly reconciles with the actual change in volume of water in storage over the same period. This infers there is some allowance for uncertainty in the balance if actual changes are measured while other components of the balance are estimated, and comparison is considered a useful check for validating site data. Therefore, the balance should be reviewed and potential lags or uncertainties in the water system should be considered when assessing validity.

The general practice in the mining sector (in accordance with the ICMM guidance and WAF) is to force a balance in water accounts, so that withdrawals/inputs equal discharges plus consumption plus or minus change in storage, by creation of a balancing point, for example assumed evaporation or change in storage volumes.

We have elected not to artificially adjust any dimensions of the water balance to force a balance in water accounts at our coal assets (BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) and New South Wales Energy Coal (NSWEC)), where storage changes are potentially large. At our coal assets, we have chosen to retain the calculated differences in the water balance and recognise the differences represent levels of uncertainty within the water balance. This understanding of uncertainty is considered in our ongoing water management decisions and guides the ongoing improvement of our water balance models, which are continually developing as we apply new measurement points, enhanced measurement methods, and improved practices to estimate indirect data (for example the runoff from rainfall, evaporation and seepage volumes). This approach is aligned with the intent of frameworks, including the ICMM guidance, WAF and GRI, that recommend water balances be used as a live management tool that can identify ongoing improvement in water accounts.

An improvement program commenced in FY2022 at our coal assets and continued in FY2024. The coal assets have now established ongoing continuous improvement programs, which include regular updates to the models, reviews of assumptions and upgrades to monitoring systems.

In line with our commitment to continuous improvement of our water accounts and data, we continue to review our assumptions for accounting for water metrics and refine our methodology in water models and water balances, recognising that water modelling and balances contain a degree of uncertainty. Water models and measurement techniques will continue to evolve and our understanding and knowledge will grow over time. In FY2024, we commenced review and refinement of our water accounts and model at our Western Australia Nickel asset, completing a review at Mount Keith. Updates to Leinster’s water model are planned to be rolled out in FY2025. The continuation of this program will be subject to review, following the announcement of temporary suspension of operations. Our reporting metrics are in line with the ICMM guidance and defined in the BHP Annual Report 2024 Glossary, which means we report:

water withdrawals (water intended for use by an operated asset) by source, by quality and by operated asset

water consumption (water used by the operated asset) via the type of consumption (e.g. evaporated, entrained)

water discharge (water returned to the environment) by destination, operated asset and quality

other managed water (water actively managed by an operated asset but not used for any operational purpose) by quantity and quality

water recycled/reused (water that is used more than once at the operated asset) by quantity

change in water storage (the net change in the volume of water stored over the annual period) for material water stores

Since FY2021, we have reported the proportion of withdrawals, discharges and consumption that occurred in areas of water stress, as defined by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Water Risk Filter physical risk ratings (see BHP and basin risk in the Water-related risk at BHP section for a full overview of this change) and since FY2022, we have aligned our disclosure of other managed water (previously called diversions) to the updated ICMM guidance, which included the change in terminology and disclosure of this metric by both quantity and quality.

We use the WAF accuracy statement to provide an indication of the accuracy for each metric by classifying them according to whether they are measured directly, simulated or estimated. We use the accuracy statement as one tool to identify data gaps and opportunities for more or improved flow measurement in our water balances that inform our water management decisions. Where possible, we endeavour to maximise direct measurement and minimise estimation. We simulate or estimate elements that are challenging to measure directly, such as evaporation, seepage from tailing storage facilities and rainfall runoff quantity and quality.

Based on our application of the WAF accuracy methodology, in FY2024 approximately 81 per cent of withdrawal and 93 per cent of discharge volumes were measured for a majority of sources for the majority of the year, therefore this data is considered to be at a high accuracy level. For example, Escondida withdrawal from desalination contributes almost 60 per cent of BHP’s total withdrawals, all of which is measured. We also recognise the WAF accuracy statement is a guide and only one tool to evaluate data quality and identify opportunities for improvement. We continued to make other improvements to the quality of our water data during FY2024.

We seek to minimise our withdrawal of high-quality water. The WAF and the ICMM water quality categories do not completely align with the generalised definition of fresh water, which is typically classified on the basis of salinity alone and related to drinking water guidelines (with a threshold of 1,000 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids). The majority of the significant volumes of water accessed and managed by mining and metals operations is not for a drinking water end use and therefore using the drinking water definition of high-quality water for reporting purposes would place inappropriate emphasis on a relatively small proportion of water managed. The WAF and ICMM guidance defines more specifically high-quality water for application to the mining and metal sector, which is water with low levels of salinity, metals, pesticides and bacteria and relatively neutral (pH 6-8.5). The definitions for water quality types are provided in the BHP Annual Report 2024 Glossary, and a detailed description is available in section 2.2.4 WAF. BHP has continued to group water quality into three categories in line with the WAF: Type 1 and Type 2 defined by the WAF equate to high-quality water defined in ICMM guidance, while the Type 3 WAF definition equates to low-quality water under the ICMM guidance.

In FY2024, approximately 70 per cent of our water withdrawals consisted of water classified as low quality by ICMM definition.

Performance

Water stewardship strategy progress

Water Stewardship Strategy pillar

What we did in FY2024

Manage risk

Effectively manage water-related risks (both threats and opportunities) at a regional level in the short and longer term

For more information on BHP’s Risk Framework refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk and the Water-related risks section on this webpage.

Value water

Effectively value water in investment and operational decisions by considering all beneficial uses of water

We have continued our work on understanding and managing the value of nature to business and communities For more information refer to the ‘valuing natural capital’ section of our Biodiversity and land webpage.

During FY2024 we applied the Non-Economically Quantifiable Impact (NEQI) framework to water-related projects in each of our assets to improve our capability to assess the full value of water when making project decisions.

Disclosure performance

Transparently disclosure water related risk, their management and performance at an asst level and ensure our public profile reflects our performance

We continue disclosure of our current water-related risks and water performance at an asset level on this webpage.

In FY2024, we continued to investigate opportunities identified by assets in FY2023 to increase the frequency or improve our disclosure of water-related data.

Collective action

Collaboratively improve regional water policy and governance and shared water challenges within our communities and across our value chain with all stakeholders

We continued our program of WRSAs in FY2024, with a WRSA from NSWEC planned to be released in FY2025.

In FY2024 we completed our first suite of short-term CBWT milestones. Our CBWTs are outlined in detail at Shared water challenges webpage; performance against our FY2024 short-term milestones is described on this page.

Since FY2022 we have collaborated with the University of Notre Dame to develop a framework for corporations and policymakers to consider the human right to water to support social equity and reduce corporate risk. During FY2024 work continued to make the framework more practical by developing decision support tools and case studies.

We continued our support for the UN CEO Water Mandate to develop a Water Resilience Assessment Framework, which in FY2024 included the release of a handbook for water utilities in developing water resilience strategies.

Learn and innovate

Proactively share, source, develop and apply knowledge and technology to water management.

We have continued to progress the Groundwater Modelling Decision Support Initiative (GDMSI) with partner organisations Rio Tinto and Flinders University to help promote the application of advances in groundwater modelling for environmental and water management decisions. During FY2024, the initiative reviewed the application of numerical groundwater modelling in environmental assessments and delivered a discussion paper on some of the challenges associated with disclosing and addressing technical uncertainty in decisions.

BMA has been a member or the Fitzroy Partnership for River Health and Mackay Whitsunday Isaac Healthy Rivers to Reef Partnership since 2020 and 2022 respectively, contributing over A$0.55 million to these partnerships in FY2024. One of the key goals of these partnerships is to provide a more complete picture of river and marine health - providing funding, resources and contributing water quality and ecosystem health monitoring data through data-sharing arrangements. In FY2024, the Mackay Whitsunday Isaac Healthy Rivers to Reef ‘Project Blueprint’, which focuses on water quality monitoring and engagement in the Whitsundays, was expanded to include direct Traditional Owner participation. Project Blueprint has completed over 12 trips and analysed over 360 samples.

As part of WAIO’s FY2024 CBWT short-term milestone delivery, terms of reference for the Weeli Wolli Catchment Industry Collaboration group, coordinated by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, were agreed. BHP funding has been committed to support shared environmental analytics incorporating a catchment scale integrated groundwater database in the Pilbara.

Context-based water targets progress

In our Water Stewardship Position Statement, we committed to develop context-based water targets (CBWTs). In FY2023, as one of our Healthy environment goal short-term milestones, we released our first suite of CBWTs that will apply until the end of FY2030. These targets were informed by BHP’s view of water-related risks in the relevant catchment and by the shared water challenges identified in the Water Resource Situational Analyses (WRSAs). A WRSA is a holistic assessment and summary of the sustainability, governance, and social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and economic values of water (fresh or marine) within a defined catchment area, which provides a rounded understanding of the shared water challenges and collective action opportunities for the catchment.

The CBWTs aim to improve our internal BHP water management and contribute to collective benefit and shared approaches to water management in the regions where we operate. Our CBWTs support BHP’s 2030 Healthy environment goal and are expected to contribute to the protection or restoration of water-dependent ecosystems in the vicinity of our operated assets. The CBWTs are underpinned by a series of milestones and we delivered all asset-level CBWT¹ FY2024 short-term milestones except one at Western Australia Nickel, as summarised below.

In FY2024, we engaged third parties (e.g. universities) to undertake a WRSA at NSWEC, including to review publicly available information and engage with partners and stakeholders (e.g. communities, Indigenous groups, policymakers and other private corporations within our catchment areas) shared water challenges were identified through a WRSA. NSWEC’s WRSA is expected to be released in FY2025, along with a NSWEC CBWT, developed in consideration of this WRSA. A CBWT for one of our legacy assets is also planned to be released in FY2025.

1 CBWTs are intended to apply at the asset level for our operated assets. Due to the previous divestment review of NSWEC, along with CBWTs for our legacy assets in the United States and Canada, CBWTs for NSWEC and at least one legacy asset area are planned to be released in FY2025. BHP plans to review the suitability of the existing Olympic Dam WRSA and CBWTs during FY2025, following the creation of the Copper South Australia asset, inclusive of Olympic Dam, Carrapateena and Prominent Hill. We expect to review the need to revise or create CBWTs when there are substantial changes to our portfolio or one of our projects moves into the operational phase. The Western Australia Nickel context-based water targets do not include the West Musgrave Project.

For more information on WRSAs and CBWTs, including progress against the targets and longer-term CBWT milestones refer to our Shared water challenges webpage.

Water data

This section provides detailed disclosure of our various water metrics in line with the ICMM guidance, GRI sustainability reporting Standards and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Standards. To allow year-on-year comparison with FY2024 BHP operated assets, the water performance data presented here excludes water data from the following Discontinued operations: BMC (sold on 3 May 2022); and assets in BHP's Petroleum business (merged with Woodside on 1 June 2022) to ensure ongoing comparability of performance. Data from Blackwater and Daunia up to the point of divestment (2 April 2024) are included. All water data currently excludes Carrapateena and Prominent Hill from Copper South Australia, West Musgrave from Nickel West, and Former OZ Minerals Brazil. Water data from Nickel West is still included in the disclosures below. In FY2025, we intend to align Prominent Hill and Carrapateena to ICMM’s Water Reporting: Good Practice Guide (2nd Ed) (ICMM guidance) and the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework (WAF), to enable disclosure of water data from these operations from FY2026. Definitions of water metrics, sources, types and detailed water data by asset are provided in our ESG Standards and Databook, in the Glossary of the BHP Annual Report 2024 and in the ICMM Guidance and WAF. We have presented data from FY2020 to provide a five-year trend. Data has been rounded to the nearest 10 megalitres to be consistent with asset/regional water information in this webpage and with the BHP Annual Report 2024. In some instances, the sum of totals for quality, source and destination may differ due to rounding.

Since FY2021, BHP has used the WWF Water Risk Filter to describe basin risk for our operated assets as discussed on this webpage under BHP basin risk. Using the WWF Water Risk Filter, it was found that two of our operated Assets (Pampa Norte and Legacy Assets (United States)) are classified as having high water stress. The data for these water-stressed assets are shown in our ESG Standards and Databook.

Water withdrawals

Water withdrawals represent the volume of water, in megalitres (ML) received and intended for use by the operated asset from the water environment and/or a third-party supplier.

Water withdrawals for FY2024 across our operated assets decreased by 7 per cent from FY2023 (from 414,860 ML to 387,300 ML). Note that the FY2022 to FY2024 data does not include Petroleum, BMC, Carrapateena, Prominent Hill or West Musgrave.

Our withdrawal of high-quality water (Type 1 and Type 2) decreased by 19 per cent from 144,760 ML in FY2023 to 117,140 ML in FY2024 and the proportion of high-quality water as a proportion of total withdrawals was 30 per cent, compared to 35 per cent in FY2023. This was primarily due to a reduction in Type 2 water withdrawal from our BMA and NSWEC assets attributable to a decrease in rainfall at those operational areas (i.e. not due to changes in consumption or recycling/re-use).

Total water withdrawals from operated assets located in high or very high water-stressed areas (as determined by WWF Water Risk Filter) were 33,330 ML (9 per cent of total withdrawals for BHP operated assets) compared to 35,340 ML (and 9 per cent) in FY2023; and consisted of 81 per cent high-quality (Type 1 and 2) water compared to 69 per cent in FY2023. This is primarily due to increased Type 2 water withdrawal at Pampa Norte, which is sourced from third-party desalinated water (i.e. the original source of this water is Type 3). Over the same period, Pampa Norte’s Type 3 water withdrawal from third-party surface water, has decreased from approximately 6,090 ML to approximately 3,350 ML. This is in line with Pampa Norte’s water strategy and context-based water target milestones to cease operational use of terrestrial water sources from water scarce areas.

The majority of our water withdrawals (approximately 58 per cent) came from seawater, noting that some of the third-party water from Nickel West and Pampa Norte is sourced from desalination facilities, some of which is supplied by seawater. Currently, most of Escondida’s operational water consumption is met by desalinated water.¹ The proportion of withdrawals relating to groundwater across BHP’s operated assets remained relatively stable, 23 per cent of withdrawals in both FY2023 and FY2024. In the context of decreasing total withdrawals over the same period, there was an absolute reduction in withdrawals relating to groundwater of over 5,300 ML. WAIO accounts for approximately 47 per cent of groundwater withdrawal across our operated assets. BMA accounts for approximately 60 per cent of surface water withdrawal across our operated assets associated with rainfall.

The withdrawals and the material contributors to these were within expectations for FY2024 and in line with our ambition to minimise our withdrawal of high-quality fresh water and replace these with seawater/low-quality withdrawals where feasible. As the results are within expectations, we do not anticipate any implications for current commitments, strategy or costs for the business with respect to water withdrawals aside from those related to delivery of the CBWTs.

The availability of water for multiple uses was identified through WRSA as a shared water challenge in the majority of the regions where we operate. To address this challenge, a number of our assets have released context-based water targets that may assist in reducing our withdrawal of water from the environment or increase water supplied from low-quality sources (such as seawater) by either increasing efficiency of water used for operational purposes, maximising return of surplus water (without use) to the environment (called ‘Other managed water’ by ICMM Guidance) or share/return our licenced water allocations to others. For example, at BMA we have a target to support water stress reduction in the Fitzroy Basin through better use of water in our operations.

Water discharges

Water discharge includes water that has been removed from the operated asset and returned to the environment or distributed to a third party. This includes seepage from tailings storage facilities to groundwater, discharge from operations to surface waters (which are also affected by periods of higher rainfall) and discharge to seawater. Water we treat and then on-supply to third parties is captured as diverted water consistent with the ICMM guidance as it is not intended for operational purposes.

Total water discharges for FY2024 were 131,990 ML, a 6 per cent decrease from 140,940 ML in FY2023. Total water discharge in high or very high water-stressed areas was 2,440 ML, 100 per cent of which was Type 3/low-quality water. Ninety-one per cent of our total discharges were from Escondida, which is the bi-product of desalination via reverse osmosis of seawater. Only 7 per cent of our discharges are comprised of high-quality water (all Type 2), compared to 10 per cent in FY2023.

Discharge to surface water (usually riverine systems) is influenced by climatic conditions, such as rainfall and occurrence of extreme weather events, and therefore is subject to higher variability and is less predictable. Water management practices at our operated assets where this may occur are designed to accommodate this variability. Therefore, the occurrence of such events is not anticipated to affect our current management activities and strategy or result in elevated exposure to risk. Type 2 water discharge to surface water decreased 40 per cent from FY2023 to FY2024, primarily due to decreased rainfall at our BMA and NSWEC assets.

In FY2024, 33 per cent of our operated assets did not discharge water as their water was either consumed in operational activities or reused/recycled. This is higher than FY2023, as NSWEC did not undertake discharge due to lower rainfall compared to the previous reporting period.

Water recycled/reused

The ICMM guidance defines reused water as water that has previously been used at the operated asset that is used again without further treatment, and recycled water is water that is reused but is treated before it is used again.

During FY2024, the total volume of water recycled/reused was 243,210 ML. The amount of recycled and reuse to total withdrawals is 63 per cent compared to 84 per cent in FY2023. The significant decrease in water re-use and recycling at Pampa Norte was primarily due to a change in the methodology for calculating reused and recycled water, using measured values in calculations instead of estimations.

The ability of our operated assets to reuse and recycle water varies depending on the recovery processes used and the water quality requirements. The accuracy of the recycled/reused metric currently varies depending on the complexity of the process and how closely water movements are measured and understood. As our data collection and analysis improves, we expect to be able to more robustly assess opportunities to recycle or reuse water.

Other managed water

Other managed water (previously called diverted water) is water that is actively managed by an operated asset but not used for any operational purposes. For example, we withdraw water and treat it for use as drinking water by local communities, such as in the town of Roxby Downs in South Australia. In FY2024, 83,870 ML of water was withdrawn without any intention to be used at BHP operated assets, and 37,860ML of this was in water-stressed areas, an increase of 20 per cent compared to 31,420 in FY2023. Approximately 51 per cent of the other managed water is Type 1 and, in water-stressed areas, 23 per cent was high quality (all Type 2).

Most of our other managed water comes from treatment processes in our legacy assets in North America and dewatering at WAIO (which is described further in the WAIO water case study).

As the withdrawal of Other Managed Water may occur in a different reporting period to its discharge, in any given annual period there may be a differential between withdrawal and discharge volumes for Other Managed Water. In FY2024, we discharged 60,880 ML of Other Managed Water.

Water consumption

In FY2024, evaporation and entrainment remained the most significant contributors to consumption. Evaporation occurs during a number of operational activities, including dust suppression, storage of tailings and storage of water.

Evaporation consumption is inherently linked with climatic conditions. Evaporation data is estimated or simulated using average climatic conditions and therefore consumption due to evaporation should remain relatively stable. Due to the link with climatic conditions, the volumes consumed via evaporation are partly outside of BHP’s direct control, although we do control how much water is directed to evaporation locations.

Entrained water includes water incorporated into product and/or waste streams, such as tailings, that cannot be easily recovered. Entrainment may show variability due to the type and location of ore during any given reporting period. The use of water in our processing facilities or for reducing dust release during storage of product can result in entrainment of water.

The category of ‘other’ for consumption includes several uses, the most significant being water used by people for drinking or ablutions at operated assets.

The collation and disclosure of consumption will assist in identifying areas for improvement in data accuracy for entrainment and evaporation, and assist with identifying opportunities to reduce, where possible, loss of water. For example, in FY2022 we commenced further analysis of our Western Australian Nickel consumption data. This has resulted in improved accuracy of reporting at Mt Keith, with calculations updated to reflect the latest guidance from the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework User Guide (V2.0), including the incorporation of water entrainment and evaporation. Further updates are planned to be rolled out in FY2025 at other Western Australian Nickel sites. Further progress of this program is under review, following the announcement of the temporary suspension of Nickel West operations.

Total water consumption in FY2024 was 300,080ML. Consumption in high or very high water-stressed locations was 27,620 ML (9 per cent of overall water consumption for BHP operated assets). The operated assets in FY2024 that consumed the most water were Escondida, WAIO and BMA. Entrainment of water in tailings is the largest contributor to consumption at Escondida, whereas evaporation is the key driver of consumption at WAIO and BMA mainly via evaporation from dust suppression, tailings and water storage. It should be noted that in any given reporting period, consumption and discharge volumes might be higher than withdrawals as evaporation can occur from water that has been captured and stored during previous periods.

Changes in water storage

The ICMM guidance recommends reporting of changes in water storage for clarity, as an indicator of internal water dynamics, and to provide increased transparency of all elements of a water balance. The ICMM recommends reporting of aggregate volumes for all sites within the company and for all sites within water-stressed areas. The ICMM, WAF and GRI recommend disclosure of changes in water storage when the volumes influence water-related decisions, have a significant water-related impact on the site, environment, communities or stakeholders, represent a material component of the site’s water balance or trigger significant changes in flows volumes or quality.

The ICMM guidance requires that, at a site level, the delta storage derived by mathematical balance broadly reconciles with the actual change in volume of water in storage over the same period. This infers there is some allowance for uncertainty in the balance if actual changes are measured while other components of the balance are estimated, and comparison is considered a useful check for validating site data. Therefore, the balance should be reviewed and potential lags or uncertainties in the water system should be considered when assessing validity.

As discussed above, we have elected not to force a water balance at BMA and NSWEC to assist us in identifying the opportunities for improvements in the accuracy of our water balances at these operated assets. During FY2023, improvement in our BMA and NSWEC water balance continued to be implemented. We acknowledge that this data still contains uncertainty and as a result, changes in data (including retrospective changes) may occur as we focus our efforts on the water balances at our BMA and NSWEC operated assets.

As expected, the largest changes in water storage during FY2024 occurred at our BMA operated assets. This is where the majority of our water source is from rainfall and as discussed in the Water-related risk at BHP section on this webpage, is highly variable year to year.

Water-related legal performance

During FY2024, we had nine incidents of water-related non-compliance that resulted in a formal enforcement action. Seven fines were received and paid in Chile associated with Escondida; in relation to

unauthorised construction in a surface water channel (two fines associated with two events, one of which occurred in FY2023)
failure to submit annual sludge declaration (this incident occurred in FY2021)
the operation and maintenance of a wastewater and drinking water plants (two fines associated with two events)
an oil spill at Puerto Coloso (two fines received associated with one event)

One fine was received and paid in Chile associated with Cerro Colorado; in relation to non-compliance with groundwater monitoring requirements at three ground water bores in the Lagunillas aquifer. One fine was received and paid in Australia at BMA Goonyella; in relation to a telemetry system failure. This incident occurred in FY2023.

We have a settled water-related legal issue at our Minerals Americas operated assets - an environmental damage action related to the alleged impact to the Lagunillas aquifer, the nearby wetlands and lagoon at Cerro Colorado.

As at the end of FY2024 we have a pending water-related legal issue at our Minerals Americas operated assets - regulatory proceedings for alleged non-compliances to Escondida’s approval governing the extraction of water from the Monturaqui aquifer.

For more information refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 6.10 - Environment and nature.

1 Small quantities of groundwater are extracted for pit dewatering to allow safe mining. This water is used for operational consumption.

Other

Next steps

In FY2025, we will continue implementation of activities to achieve our existing CBWTs and milestones. We also intend to continue development of CBWTs for our remaining operated assets and non-operational legacy assets. NSWEC’s WRSA is expected to be released in FY2025, along with a NSWEC CBWT, developed in consideration of this WRSA. A CBWT for one of our legacy asset locations is also planned to be released in FY2025. We anticipate our focus in FY2025 will be aligning Prominent Hill and Carrapateena to ICMM’s Water Reporting: Good Practice Guide (2nd Ed) (ICMM guidance) and the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework (WAF), to enable disclosure of water data from these operations from FY2026. We also plan to continue our collaboration on water governance and management with external parties.

Risk

BHP’s portfolio of long-life operated assets means we must think about the long term, plan in terms of decades and consider the needs and circumstances of future generations. We need to consider our operated assets’ needs and the potential for regional changes to water resources due to climate change, pollution, population growth and changing expectations.

The shared nature of water resources means we also need to think ‘beyond the fence’, which includes the interactions within catchments (a term used interchangeably with ‘basins’ on this webpage) when managing risk. As part of our Risk Framework, our operated assets are required to identify, assess and manage the water-related risks associated with their activities and make strategic business decisions in line risk appetite. Our Water Stewardship Strategy has been progressing a range of improvements to further identify and assess water-related risk for our operated assets, including those at basin level. In FY2020, we completed our initial risk assessments for the catchments where we operate to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the water-related risks in our operational regions. We will continue to review our water-related risk profile in line with our mandatory minimum performance requirements for risk management. For more information refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk.

The management of water-related risks needs to reflect the different physical environments, hydrological systems and socio-political and regulatory contexts in which we work. BHP must take into account the interactions that we and external parties have with water resources within catchments, shared marine regions and groundwater systems. In our disclosure of water-related risk, we present two facets of risk:

operational water-related risks (threats or opportunities to BHP’s business, water resource, communities or the environment that are related to BHP activities at our operated assets)
basin risks (threats or opportunities associated with inherent basin characteristics in areas where BHP operates, such as drought or flooding etc.), termed ‘inherent risk’ within the ICMM guidance

These two facets of risk seek to consider shared water challenges within the catchment and how catchment risk may influence company risks.

BHP and basin risk

We have used the WWF’s Water Risk Filter since FY2021, to assess the level of basin risk of each of the locations where we have operated assets. We use the level of basin risk as an input to assessments of our operational water-related risks; usually as a causal factor and when determining the severity of potential impacts and likelihood of the risk event occurring.

The WWF Water Risk Filter is widely used and in FY2021, BHP adopted it in place of our own assessment method, seeking to provide greater transparency and clarity to external parties about how the evaluation of inherent basin risk is undertaken for areas where we operate. The WWF Water Risk Filter assesses the level of risk in the basin based on the location of the basin from physical, regulatory and reputational perspectives using global (or local where available) datasets of 32 basin risk indicators. Other external water guidance (e.g. the CEO Water Mandate) also classify risk using these three categories.

For some of our operated assets, there are multiple individual sites within the asset that are geographically spread, such as our BMA, WAIO and North American legacy assets. For these operated assets, multiple locations across the geographical spread were assessed in the WWF Water Risk Filter and the average overall basin risk of the locations reported for the operated asset.

The methodology that is used by the WWF Water Risk Filter allows for the use of local knowledge to verify the basin risk outcomes. This approach is also supported by other external water disclosure frameworks, such as the CEO Water Mandate and CDP.

Although we have presented the level of basin risk in accordance with the outcomes from the WWF Water Risk Filter in our tables and figures, the discussion below indicates where, based on our local knowledge, we consider the outputs of the WWF Water Risk Filter may be under- or over-estimating basin risk.

In the majority of locations where we operate, BHP considers regulatory risk for the basin as higher than the WWF Water Risk Filter due to knowledge of specific regulatory requirements applicable to each operated asset and other operators in the region, regional policy, plans and constraints and current discussions with local and national regulators regarding water permitting and performance for the operated asset and the region. We have incorporated our local knowledge of regulatory risk within our assessment of severity and likelihood in our operational water-related risk assessments.

Other risks that we consider higher than under the WWF Water Risk Filter include physical risk for Olympic Dam due to the use of Great Artesian Basin water resource, which supports important springs and is an important shared water resource in the region, and reputational risk at our Chilean operated assets (Escondida and Pampa Norte), a legacy asset in the United States and WAIO, due to widespread community and media interest in these regions. These higher basin risks have been incorporated into the relevant operational water-related risk assessment (e.g. catchment risk assessment for Olympic Dam).

Refer to the graphics below for a summary of our basin risk level due to location for each operated asset and the catchment where they are located.

Basin characteristics

The following table provides further characteristics of the basins, reflecting the outcomes from the WWF Water Risk Filter, where BHP operated in FY2024. This includes the river basin names, climatic conditions, basin physical risk and projected potential for change in overall basin risk as a result of climate change (based on the Change in Overall Risk by 2050 WWF Water Risk Filter’s Pessimistic Scenario as described on the WWF Risk Filter). In addition, it provides information regarding the key water source, water activities and water consumptive uses of the water resources for each of our operated assets and information regarding discharge permitting. Note that due to the nature of our operations, our activities do not necessarily impact the river basin named in the table below due to the fact that river water is not necessarily our water source. For example, the WWF Water Risk Filter shows Olympic Dam as being in the Lake Gardiner River basin but our operations do not interact with or access river water, as our key water source for Olympic Dam is groundwater sourced from the Great Artesian Basin.

The basin physical risk level from the WWF Water Risk Filter is presented in this table to indicate whether BHP’s operated assets are in a ‘water-stressed area’. The rationale for BHP’s use of this measure to determine water stress is outlined below.

Water stress is defined by the CEO Water Mandate in the Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines (2014) as ‘the ability, or lack thereof, to meet human and ecological demand for fresh water’. The Guidelines also state that ‘compared to scarcity, water stress is a more inclusive and broader concept' and that it should consider other physical aspects, such as water quality and accessibility and floods and drought. The World Resources Institute (WRI) Aqueduct database determines baseline water stress based on an assessment of water scarcity and does not explicitly consider environmental flow requirements, water quality or access to water. The WWF Water Risk Filter in its assessment of physical risk includes indicators for the potential for drought, flooding and the risk to water quality and ecosystems services, and it therefore takes a holistic view of water stress as recommended by the CEO Water Mandate. For this reason, we have elected to use the physical risk ratings from the WWF Water Risk Filter to define ‘water-stressed areas’. Operated assets with a physical risk rating of high or above, as assessed for the FY2024 period, are deemed to be in areas of water stress.

Characteristics of basins where BHP's operated assets were located in FY2024¹

Asset (main commo-dity³	River basin (WWF)	Climatic conditions	Physical risk (WWF)	Projected potential change in overall risk (based on projected change in overall risk by 2050 WWF Pessimistic scenario)²	Main operational water source, activities and consumption	Discharge (Y/N), Discharge quality limit type
Escondida (Copper)	Puna de Atacama Plateau	Arid or semi-arid	Medium	Remains as Medium	Seawater – open-pit mining and mineral processing, entrainment in tailings	Y, Regulatory and management controls
Legacy assets – Canada (Closed Sites)	Huron Bay, Hudson Bay, North Atlantic, North Pacific	Moderate precipitation	Very Low	Remains as Low	Surface water (limited operational water predominately recovery for treatment) – water treatment, tailings management, evaporation	N, N/A
Legacy assets – United States (Closed Sites)	Colorado, North Pacific and Rio Grande³	Arid or semi-arid	High	Remains as High	Surface water (limited operational water predominately recovery for treatment) –water treatment, tailings management, evaporation	N, N/A
Nickel West (Nickel)	Western Plateau³ (Salt Lake⁴)	Arid or semi-arid	Medium	Remains as Medium	Groundwater – minerals processing, dust suppression, tailings management, evaporation	Y, Regulatory
New South Wales Energy Coal (Thermal Coal)	Australia (Hunter⁴)	Moderate precipitation with distinct dry season	Medium	Remains as Medium	Surface water – minerals processing, dust suppression, evaporation/entrainment	N, N/A
Olympic Dam (Copper)	Australia³ (Lake Gardiner⁴)	Arid or semi-arid	Medium	Remains as Medium	Groundwater – minerals processing, tailings management, evaporation	N, N/A
Pampa Norte (Copper)	South Pacific³	Arid or semi-arid	High	Medium	Sea, ground and surface water – minerals processing, evaporation	N, N/A
Jansen Potash Project (Potash)	Nelson and Saskatchewan³	Moderate Precipitation	Medium	Remains as Medium	Surface water – minerals processing, evaporation	Y, Regulatory
Queensland Coal (BMA) (Metallurgical Coal)	Australia (Fitzroy⁴)	Sub-tropical – Moderate precipitation with frequent major storm events	Medium	Remains as Medium	Surface water – minerals processing, dust suppression, evaporation	Y, Regulatory
WAIO (Iron Ore)	Australia (Fortescue⁴)	Arid or semi-arid	Medium	Remains as Medium	Groundwater – minerals processing, dust suppression, dewatering, evaporation/entrainment	Y, Regulatory

¹ Risk ratings do not include former OZ Minerals operations.
² We have used the WWF Water Risk Filter projected potential change (as shown in % in brackets) in overall basin risk for a pessimistic scenario. This is a world with unequal and unstable socio-economic development (SSP3) and high GHG emission levels (RCP6.0 / RCP8.5), a pathway which is expected to lead to an increase of global mean surface temperature of approximately 3.5°C by the end of the 21st century. Based on this projected potential change it is noted if it is expected that the rating level for overall risk rating will change.
³ These river basins, as determined by the WWF Water Risk Filter, vary from those previously reported as ‘catchments’. This is because the BHP bespoke tool considers the predominate water source in stating catchment (e.g. groundwater basin rather than river/surface water basin).
⁴ The WWF Water Risk Filter did not delineate river basins within Australia. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology river basin map was used to provide more granularity on river basins at our BHP operated assets.

Using the approach for defining water stress discussed above (based on the WWF Water Risk Filter basin physical risk level), two of our operated assets (a legacy asset in the United States and Pampa Norte) are classified as being under high or very high water stress due to location. In line with the ICMM guidance and other frameworks (e.g. GRI/SASB), we have disclosed the proportion of our water withdrawal, discharge and consumption that occurs in water-stressed areas in the water performance section on this webpage.

Our operational water-related risks

Operational risks are those that have their origin inside BHP or occur as a result of our activities. Operational water-related risks refer to the ways in which water-related activities can potentially impact our business viability, water resource sustainability or influence achievement of our operational and strategic objectives. Our operational water-related activities and risks are influenced by or can influence both the basin and regional scale risks as described above. We prioritise the allocation of water-related risk management resources based on where we believe there is an increased likelihood of potential adverse water-related impacts due to the nature of our activities (e.g. tailings and marine risks).

BHP’s Risk Framework, our Environment Global Standard, and internal water management standard govern the identification, assessment and management of operational water-related risks. More information is contained in the table below. The basin risk discussed above also seeks to inform the assessment of operational water-related risks, usually as a cause of a risk event. For example, high water scarcity within the basin may be a cause for the risk of inadequate water supply, or inadequate flood management may be a cause for an extreme weather impact. Basin risk may also influence the severity of potential impacts and likelihood of the operational water-related risk event occurring. For example, a high basin risk for ecosystem services may increase severity of potential impacts to environmental receptors, such as groundwater-dependent vegetation, if the water resource is not managed appropriately. For more information on our approach to risk management refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk.

Unmanaged or uncontrolled operational water-related risks have the potential to adversely impact:

the health and safety of our employees, contractors and community members
spiritual and cultural values
communities, including social and economic viability
environmental resources, including water, land and biodiversity
legal rights and regulatory compliance
reputation, investment attractiveness or social value proposition
production, growth and development (including exploration)
financial performance

As discussed above, external water risk disclosure frameworks usually classify risks based on three categories: physical, reputational and regulatory, which is based on the nature of the impact of an event. We classify all identified risks to which BHP is exposed using our Group Risk Architecture and consider physical, reputational and regulatory impacts across each of our risk categories. For more information on our approach to risk classification refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk.

The BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8.1 – Risk factors outlines some of the threats and opportunities that may occur as a result of our activities globally. This provides information pertaining to some potential water-related threats, such as operational events and significant social or environmental impacts. Key management actions for each risk factor are discussed, which include some water-related controls, such as planning and designing for structural integrity and design, defining key governance roles, setting minimum technical specifications, inspections, monitoring, audits and assurance and stakeholder engagement. The information on this webpage expands on this and outlines the current level of operational water-related risks at each operated asset.

The water risk table summarises the operational water-related risks that we have identified across our operated assets. Generally, the majority of our operational water-related risks monitoring relates to water scarcity (not having enough water for our operations or communities), water surplus (having too much water at our operations) or having a potentially unacceptable change to the environment or community from BHP’s water activities.

The assessment of operational water-related risks presented below does not consider the effectiveness of controls to manage identified operational water-related risks. Therefore, this table should be read as a hypothetical representation of the estimated impact to BHP in a worst-case scenario without regard to probability and assuming all risk controls, including insurance and hedging contracts, are ineffective.

We have classified the significance of BHP’s operational water-related risks as follows:

Tier 1: Operational water-related risks that may have significant consequences, in the absence of controls (shown in the table below as 1)
Tier 2: Operational water-related risks that are still important, but may have lower consequences, in the absence of controls (shown in the table below as 2)
n/a: Operational water-related risks that are not applicable at that operated asset

For the purposes of this disclosure, the basin and the operational water-related risk ratings in this table are reviewed each year at the operated asset level.

Asset-level BHP risk ranking for operational water-related risks – before controls are applied

Risk area*	Escondida	Nickel West	North American legacy assets	NSW Energy Coal	Olympic Dam	Pampa Norte	BMA	Western Australia Iron Ore
Catchme-nt level	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Closure¹	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1²
Complia-nce	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Dewateri-ng³	1	2	n/a	2	2	1	2	1
Extreme weather	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	1
Marine	1	1	2	2	n/a	n/a	1	2
Tailings	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Water access sanitation and hygiene	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1
Water quality	1	1	1	2	1	2	1	2
Water security	1	2	n/a	1	1	1	1	2

* Water-related risks do not include former OZ Minerals operations.

¹ This rating does not include water-related risks associated with current operated assets that may emerge at closure.

² For closure, the WAIO asset assessment includes the Beenup and Newcastle legacy assets that are currently managed by WAIO. Legacy assets refers to those BHP operated assets, or part thereof, located in the Americas that are in the closure phase.

³ The removal or drainage of water from rock, soil or tailings.

The water risk table provides more details about BHP’s Tier 1 operational water-related risks that we have identified, potential impacts and how we seek to proactively manage such risks. We consider how to avoid, minimise or mitigate potential or actual adverse impacts, or enable or enhance positive impacts, including to the environment and community (including cultural and spiritual values), health and safety and our financial performance and reputation. Under our mandatory minimum performance requirements for risk management, material risks are required to be reviewed periodically to evaluate performance.

All the risk areas have potential physical, reputational and regulatory impacts. The management of operational water-related risks requires a mixture of management types/maturity that are described by the CEO Water Mandate, CDP and ICMM guidance.

Water risk table

Scope

Potential impacts

Management

Catchment

Risk associated with the potential alteration or modification of water catchments or resources in or around the areas where we operate. The risk may be posed by our current or historical activities or those of other water users, or cumulative and indirect impacts to shared water resources. BHP acknowledges and seeks to include the cultural and spiritual values associated with water resources, especially to Indigenous communities, in consideration of this risk type.

Potential impacts to the community from BHP’s access to and use of water resources within the catchment include reduced water supply to communities, aesthetic impacts to recreational use for water or contamination of water sources, with potential reduction in availability for community water use. Ineffective catchment governance and regulation can make them more complex to manage. The potential impacts to the environment may include changes to natural groundwater levels, changes to stream flows, water quality issues in ground, surface or marine environments and reduced pressure in groundwater aquifers that in turn, may affect the biodiversity, habitats and species that rely on the water sources. Potential environmental impacts can contribute to adverse community impacts and affect the value of the water resource for future generations. Unsustainable use of the water resource may affect production and a lack of understanding of the water resource may impact the operated assets ability to assess the long-term water management limitations and opportunities. Impacts to the water resource may have longer-term financial implications and threaten our business model, including our ability to expand or develop new resources and inhibit the delivery of social value. The cumulative impacts resulting from multiple users of the water resource within a catchment may exacerbate the potential community, environmental and business impacts discussed above.

We seek to manage potential impacts to the water resource, including the environmental, community and business impacts, through:

ongoing and regular stakeholder engagement to ensure effective collaboration
compliance with water allocation permits
context-based water targets (CBWTs) to address shared water challenges in the catchment
participation in catchment-level reviews and regulator assessments to understand and improve technical knowledge, challenges and interactions at a catchment level
ongoing monitoring and measurement of water (quality, quantity), including maintaining a water balance
understanding baseline and reference characteristics of water resource and movements
predicting the impacts using technical models and testing of water management options should impacts occur
water recovery or source substitution
integration of the commitments in our Water Stewardship Position Statement and pillars of our Water Stewardship Strategy into business strategy, planning, decision processes and performance reporting
integration of water management practices into operated asset business planning
• identification and where feasible, implementation of opportunities for reduced water use
where practical, ongoing monitoring of flora and fauna and other indicators of environmental health
human rights impact assessments
undertaking WRSAs involving stakeholder engagement

Closure

Risk associated with water-related closure objectives and outcomes for assets that are closing or have closed, which may include water quality, water accumulation or flow issues within the BHP footprint and beyond.

Ineffectively managed water-related closure risks across the entire life cycle of an asset may adversely affect the environment (for example, contaminants in surface and groundwater, changes to landforms), communities, public safety and our costs associated with managing water now and over the long term.

We seek to manage our potential water-related closure risk through closure planning and early and progressive closure management. Closure planning is an important control across BHP’s assets. Closure strategies should consider issues, such as pit void lake formations, acidic and metalliferous drainage, saline water accumulation, dewatering, extreme weather, water quality and potential impacts to both surface water and groundwater. For more information refer to the Closure webpage. For more information on the financial provisions relating to closure liabilities refer to the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk.

Compliance

Risk associated with changes in the regulatory settings, including the nature and extent of regulation related to water allocation, permits, tariffs and reporting obligations. Our operated assets function in mature regulatory environments for water and regulation compliance requires constant vigilance. The regions where we operate have reasonably mature regulatory systems for water extraction, use and discharge, although their approach and requirements vary by operated asset and jurisdiction. Typically, we are granted a licence to extract a prescribed quantity of water for a defined period and to discharge water at certain quantity limits and quality standards. These limits and standards are determined by relevant local regulatory authorities.

Alleged or actual non-compliance could result in adverse impacts ranging from lower-order infringements through to financial penalties, enforcement orders or proceedings, social activism or increased cost to BHP. Environmental impacts may result in regulatory breaches or legal liability.

Compliance, monitoring and reporting requirements are usually defined through permits and licences. In addition to local regulation, we apply a range of internal standards. Refer to Governance and oversight on the Water webpage and the Environment webpage for a detailed overview of these. There are a few instances where water use and discharge may not be regulated via licences or permits. Our internal standards require that, in these instances, BHP follows relevant local guidance e.g. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Water Quality Guidelines or the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Application of these guidelines typically requires consideration of the water quality in receiving waterbodies. Ongoing engagement with regulators helps us to understand their priorities, how regulatory requirements apply to our operated assets and at a catchment level address existing non-compliances regarding surface water and groundwater.

Dewatering

Risk associated with management of dewatering activities and surplus mine groundwater and surface water (such as levels, volumes and pressures). Many of BHP’s ore bodies are below the natural groundwater level and to access the ore we need to pump water to reduce the groundwater levels in order to access the ore bodies safely. Dewatering is an important activity that supports mine production, by enabling access to ore located below the water table or enabling access to ore by supporting pit stability.

Dewatering can potentially impact geotechnical stability and safety, water supply, excess water management, the environment, communities and production.

We seek to manage the risks associated with dewatering through:

mine planning
maintaining an operational and predictive water balance
defining dewatering and depressurisation targets
monitoring and reviewing performance metrics
environmental impact assessments
managing excess/surplus water (such as the re-injection of excess water to local aquifers, where possible)
ongoing hydrology assessments to inform planning

Extreme weather

Risk associated with extreme weather can cause drought, snow or flood events and may arise from acute (event-driven, including increased severity of extreme weather events) or chronic (longer-term changes) to climate cycles.

Extreme weather events may contribute to adverse production, environmental, community and reputational impacts. For example, ineffective management during drought conditions may constrain production due to limitations on water availability. Ineffective management of excess water also has the potential to affect geotechnical stability and safety, prevent site access, cause injuries or fatalities or physical damage to infrastructure due to flooding and affect the environment, communities and production. Infrastructure damage may result in adverse impacts to communities where we operate where BHP supplies services such as power, drinking water or waste water treatment services directly to those communities.

The protection of our workforce from the potential impacts of extreme weather forms part of the overall management of health and safety risks and is discussed within our health and safety disclosures. We seek to manage potential impacts including through:

use of forecasting tools and monitoring of extreme weather events to help inform appropriate infrastructure design and operation and assist in timely and appropriate management
establishing design criteria for surface water infrastructure, which consider the rainfall intensity and duration (including extreme weather events analysis)
building integrity within the infrastructure including, where required, additional measures designed to ensure integrity for those facilities located in areas of higher basin risk due to the presence of cyclone, tropical storm, drought and/or flood hazard events
emergency preparedness, communications systems and adequately trained staff. For example, operated assets test the effectiveness of emergency preparedness for extreme weather events by undertaking emergency drills that include external agencies, such as regional fire and police as well as internal BHP resources

Marine

Risk associated with the alteration in marine water quality (sea or coastal areas), water or seabed levels or biophysical changes to marine environments. Marine ecosystems are susceptible to impacts resulting from changes to the physical (e.g. temperature and pH) and chemical (metal, hydrocarbon concentrations) parameters of the water body. This risk can arise from discharges from desalination facilities or from port facilities located in proximity to communities and/or key marine areas.

Due to regional differences in marine ecosystems and potential cumulative impacts, the type and extent of potential impacts to the marine environment for each of our operated assets may be different and could result in increased costs for mitigation, offsets or financial compensatory actions or obligations. Potential adverse impacts include water quality impacts due to loss of hydrocarbon or chemical containment. Impacts to water quality have the potential to affect both the environment and communities. Brine discharges at desalination facilities may result in the alteration of marine ecosystems. Loss of containment or other major incidents may affect BHP’s licence to operate and/or production.

Controls for chemical containment include:

pressure relief systems
engineering design specifications
operational procedures (e.g. job risk assessments, management of change, equipment performance standards, inspections and audits)
passive protection
bunding
continuous monitoring during operations

Mitigating controls include:

communication and emergency drills
preparedness plans and emergency systems

Controls for desalination and port facilities include:

ongoing maintenance of critical equipment
monitoring and technical studies
stakeholder engagement

To help avoid or minimise potential or actual adverse impacts associated with smaller discharges in marine environments, treatment, sediment, erosion, dust minimisation and other collection and/or treatment systems are utilised.

Tailings

Risk associated with the design, operation, maintenance, governance and reliability of tailings storage facilities.

Potential adverse impacts arising from the ineffective management of tailings storage facilities (TSFs) can range from seepage and interrupted production to catastrophic failure incidents with the potential for multiple injuries and fatalities, widespread environmental damage and extensive community disruption and potential damage to community infrastructure, businesses and livelihoods, with flow-on financial and reputational impacts.

In FY2019, we introduced mandatory minimum performance requirements for TSFs that govern how we manage TSF failure risks across BHP and outline applicable processes, including business planning, risk assessments and management of change. Our internal standards and guidance for TSFs have been updated to align with the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. For more information on tailings refer to our Tailings storage facilities webpage.

Water access, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and water-related human rights

Risk associated with providing access to safe and reliable drinking water (potable water) and appropriate sanitation and hygiene facilities, including availability of appropriate water infrastructure to supply WASH facilities. The remote nature of many of our operated assets means BHP can sometimes contribute to improved access to water and sanitation as we are often the sole supplier of water to our workforce for drinking and sanitation, and the manager of effluent. This role sometimes extends to neighbouring communities.

Ineffective WASH practices and infrastructure may result in the inability to provide the required quantity and quality of drinking water or sanitation. This may result in illness and potential fatalities, and could also disrupt our operated assets, impact communities and the environment, have adverse financial and reputational impacts and inhibit the delivery of our social value proposition. Our operated assets also have the potential to affect the cultural and spiritual values associated with water resources, including potential human rights breaches.

Understanding the baseline quality of the water we receive, the performance of our treatment plants and monitoring the water produced are our WASH priorities. Our Water Stewardship Position Statement commits us to uphold the basic human right to water access and sanitation within our operations and to contribute to realising this right within communities. We do this by seeking to ensure members of our workforce have access to clean drinking water, gender-appropriate sanitation facilities and hygiene at our workplaces and within our communities where we are the supplier of these services. We have global drinking water standards that our operated assets are required to meet. Other controls include appropriate infrastructure that is constructed, designed and operated to meet external water quality standards by suitably qualified persons and is regularly maintained, inspected, monitored, with exception reports and responses, emergency response and business continuity planning. Regular maintenance of water infrastructure, such as treatment plants, pipelines and tanks, is critical to ensure water is adequate for our operated assets, both in quantity and quality. Human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) are a control applied in certain circumstances to assess direct impacts to the workforce and local communities, as well as potential impacts to other human rights, such as Indigenous, spiritual and cultural rights. All operated assets are required to undertake and review HRIAs regularly.

Water quality

Risk associated with changes in the chemical attribute of water, which may occur from runoff or seepage (including from exposed ground, pit slopes, waste rock), infiltration from water, tailings and process facilities, infrastructure, and increases in salinity due to long-term storage of water.

Changes to the quality of water that runs through or under an operated asset can affect the surrounding groundwater resources and streams. This can affect other water users and the environment. Changes in water quality can also constrain production or result in water accumulation over time (due to discharge restrictions), which makes management during extreme rainfall events more challenging. This risk can persist for years after mining activity has ceased.

Management of water quality risks requires an understanding of what contributes to changes in water quality, how this may affect sensitive receptors within the environment and/or communities, and the appropriate management measures required. Controls include:

avoiding contact with substances that may affect water quality
appropriate design, construction and monitoring of facilities to prevent and detect contamination
preventing or minimising adverse impacts through treatment and monitoring of water quality outcomes, so that the effectiveness of controls is understood and can be reviewed as appropriate

Water security

Risk associated with current and future balance between water supply, including the capacity and reliability of water supply infrastructure, and demand for all relevant users and related to the ecosystem function. A continuous and sustainable water supply is critical to our operated assets, including provision of sufficient and well-maintained water infrastructure.

An inability to secure water access can constrain production and have regulatory, legal and financial implications. It may also adversely impact the environment or community, which was discussed as part of the Catchment risk area of this table. Insufficient or poorly maintained water infrastructure can result in the inability of water infrastructure to supply the required quantity or quality of water necessary for our operated assets. This can result in reduced production and other adverse impacts, including to the long-term viability of our operated assets. The level of risk is dependent on location and climate impact, water availability and supply. For example, availability has been a risk at New South Wales Energy Coal in the Hunter region of eastern Australia due to extended periods of below-average rainfall.

An adequate understanding of technical aspects of the water resource, hydrological conditions and/or long-term changes in water availability and management is critical to ensure ongoing supply. In addition, understanding demand through water balances, predictive modelling and monitoring is central to effective water security. Many of the controls in place for the management of catchment risk are applied for management of water security risks. Refer to controls listed above for the Catchment risk area of this table. We seek to use lower-quality water where feasible and recover and recycle water to reduce withdrawal of new water from the environment. Water infrastructure needs to be:

designed and constructed to meet internal and external standards
regularly inspected and maintained
operated within set parameters
regularly monitored with processes to respond to monitoring

Climate-related risks are discussed in many of the risk factors in the BHP Annual Report 2024, Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk. From a water-related risk perspective, potential physical climate-related impacts could increase the likelihood and/or severity of risks associated with operational events. Potential direct water-related outcomes resulting from climate change may include changes in precipitation patterns, sea levels, storm intensities, temperatures and frequency and/or severity of natural disasters (such as floods or droughts).

Indirect potential outcomes of these changes may include coastal erosion, storm tide inundation and production of toxic microorganisms and, over the longer term, reduced rainfall could create water security issues while increasing the need to manage excess water.

The effects of climate change could create or increase business risks (e.g. the risk of production loss due to increased flooding). Assessments of the potential impact of future climate change policy and regulatory, legal, technological, market and societal changes on water-related risks have a degree of uncertainty given the wide scope of influencing factors and the countries where we do business. Under our mandatory minimum performance requirements for risk management, material risks are required to be reviewed periodically to evaluate performance. These reviews are designed to ensure developments in climate change science and policy and other relevant regulatory, legal, technological, market and societal factors, including areas of uncertainty, are considered annually in our evaluation of operational water-related risks.

Our operated assets are required to apply BHP’s Risk Framework and our Climate Change Global Standard to identify, assess and manage physical climate-related risks, including options to build climate resilience into their activities, for example, by designing new facilities to withstand projected sea level rise or changing climate patterns, or factoring forecast increases in extreme weather events into operated asset-level plans. We are progressively implementing physical risk assessments under our Adaptation Strategy. We also require investment and growth opportunities to undertake analysis of climate-related risks. For more information see the Climate change webpage.

Examples of operational water-related risks

Catchment risk

Catchment-level risks are classified as Tier 1 across all of our mining operated assets as the nature of these assets coupled with their physical context has the potential to significantly and adversely impact water resources and related environmental and/or social values. This may arise because of direct impacts either from BHP’s operated assets or from the cumulative impacts from our activities combined with those of others within a region.

For example, WAIO in the Pilbara region of Western Australia is located alongside other mining companies’ facilities. The cumulative effect of combined activities has the potential to impact groundwater that supports local ecosystems and has important spiritual and cultural significance for Indigenous communities.

To better understand potential impacts, WAIO conducted a strategic environmental assessment that took a regional approach. A key element of the assessment was to understand the potential cumulative adverse impacts and management strategies associated with surface water and groundwater. An analysis was also undertaken to identify key, water-dependent environmental features within the upper Fortescue River catchment.

This innovative approach allowed WAIO to develop proactive, outcome-based management actions to cumulative-impact risks. These actions now inform short- and long-term operational planning to avoid and minimise adverse impacts to water-dependent environments.

In FY2022, the majority of our operated assets commenced a WRSA in line with the Our Requirements for Environment and Climate Change standard (as it was at that time, now the Environment Global Standard). This process involved third-party review of publicly available information and stakeholder engagement by the third party to determine the shared water challenges in the regions where we operate. This involved active engagement with various stakeholders, such as other industries, local, regional and state government agencies, civil society organisations, public authorities, local community members and other interested parties that may influence or be influenced by our site water use and activities. We continued our program of WRSAs in FY2024, with a WRSA from NSWEC planned to be released in FY2025.

Outcomes from these WRSA can be found here.

Dewatering risk

Refer to our Managing excess water in the Pilbara case study for an example of how BHP manages dewatering risks.

Extreme weather risk

Extreme weather risks are required to be managed at the operated asset level. These risks have been identified as Tier 1 at WAIO (cyclones), Escondida (extreme precipitation events), Pampa Norte (extreme precipitation events), BMA and NSWEC (variable rainfall, including extreme rainfall and cyclones and periods of drought).

The climate at our BMA operated assets is characterised by wet season rainfall, which includes tropical cyclone events that produce most of the annual rainfall and a dry season during which little rainfall occurs.

The management of mine-affected water (MAW) is one of the key operational water-related risks for BMA. MAW is rainfall runoff, including the large volumes obtained during storm events, from active mining areas and other water that has been used in the mining process. MAW is typically stored in mine pits and dams. Over time, this water may become more saline due to evaporation or it may have increased suspended solids due to wash-down or erosion from surrounding mining activity. MAW is used for dust suppression and coal washing. Too little MAW may limit production and excess water may obstruct access and limit production in operational pits.

Water management activities aim for the balance between too much and too little water on each site. This allows sufficient storage for runoff from rainfall events, while not affecting production and not allowing unauthorised site discharge of MAW. Discharge of MAW needs to be managed in accordance with licence conditions, which in some cases may require management of MAW prior to discharge. Appropriate management should avoid or minimise out-of-season flow in ephemeral creeks and rivers, which has the potential (if not controlled) to increase sediment and salt loads.

Due to ongoing above average rainfall, excess water management is central to BMA’s operating strategy. Some BMA sites still hold excess water after the 2011 and 2013 floods and tropical cyclone Debbie in 2017. One way we seek to manage this is to move MAW from sites with water excess to sites that have too little water. A further control is to avoid the accumulation of additional water from excess rainfall events. BHP undertakes detailed studies on an ongoing basis that assess the benefit and cost of various options to manage excess water and seek to ensure the design of infrastructure in flood prone areas remains adequate for the level of flood risk.

Ongoing modelling and simulations are used to inform appropriate flood risk mitigation activities, which include construction of flood levees and preparation of emergency evacuation plans.

Climate change has the potential to heighten these extreme weather risks and introduce new ones.

Water access, sanitation and hygiene risk

Water access, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) is a Tier 1 risk at all operated assets where drinking water and sanitation facilities are provided for the workforce and/or communities.

The remote nature of many of our operated assets means BHP is often the supplier of water for the purposes of drinking and sanitation, and the manager of effluent with respect to our workforce. In some instances, BHP has agreed to arrangements that extend this role beyond our operated assets to our neighbouring communities.

In such circumstances, we are committed to providing access to safe and reliable drinking water (potable water) and appropriate sanitation and hygiene facilities.

For example, WAIO provides drinking water to the community of Newman, five operational mining areas and one closed mine, and supplements supply to our operations at port and rail. Therefore, management of this water is critical to our activities and surrounding communities. To manage this risk, WAIO adopted a management system approach, which integrates World Health Organization (WHO) and the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines requirements, as well as a number of additional standards to enable a holistic approach to drinking water safety and infrastructure management.

Our operated assets also have the potential to affect the cultural and spiritual values associated with water resources. Where relevant, BHP engages with local and Indigenous communities to understand and seek to avoid or minimise potential or actual adverse effects to cultural and spiritual value.

Water quality risk

BHP activities have the potential to alter the natural or background water quality within the catchments where we operate. Water quality may be adversely affected by discharges into surface, sea or groundwater streams or increases in salinity may occur via evaporation from our water storage facilities.

Our current operations and legacy sites are in jurisdictions with mature regulatory regimes. As a result, priority substances within our discharges typically are identified before operational activities and regulated by our licencing and permitting process in discussion with regulatory agencies. This process generally relies on public information regarding potential toxicity, ecological and health criteria for priority substances, and where available, information pertaining to background levels of priority substances within the region of the operations, to determine discharge limits. Monitoring and reporting requirements for priority substances are also typically defined by permits and licences. BHP installs treatment equipment where water discharge is planned and agreed limits may not be met in the absence of treatment.

Where discharges are not regulated via licences or permits, we need to use a risk-based approach to determine potential monitoring for priority substances. This approach requires evaluation of both the volume and quality of the discharge and that of the receiving environment. Baseline or reference conditions for water resources within each operated asset’s area of influence are required to be set, and an assessment of potential impacts to these are required to be undertaken as outlined in our Environment Global Standard and internal water management standard. Where potential adverse impacts identified include contaminants being introduced to a receiving environment at levels above those already present, appropriate monitoring programs for these discharges need to be developed and criteria set (e.g. triggers and thresholds). These criteria are informed by relevant local guidance that outlines potential health (if applicable) and or ecological impacts e.g. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Water Quality Guidelines, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation – Guideline – Assessment and management of contaminated sites or the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

Around 91 per cent of global water discharge from BHP’s operated assets is from our desalination activities at Escondida. Our Escondida asset’s discharges are to seawater and regulated under government issued permits that include discharge limits. Other sites that have water discharges are shown in the water performance section and in our ESG Standards and Databook. None of our operated assets discharge untreated effluent from waste water treatment plants to any water streams.

Closure risk

Refer to our Beenup Titanium Minerals Project Closure case study for an example of how BHP manages water risks in relation to closure.

Water-related risk in the value chain

Water-related risks can indirectly affect operations via our value chain, from supply to operated assets to customers. For example, floods in one part of the world may affect supplies of a critical input or item of equipment necessary to sustain our operated assets. Additionally, tightening regulation around water discharges in a particular country or region may constrain our customers’ manufacturing operations. This may have flow-on effects to our ability to sell certain commodities.

BHP has potential exposure to water-related risks across our value chain and climate change may increase our future exposure. Customers and suppliers may be exposed to areas of high to extremely high water stress. Many are also located in areas with a higher likelihood of flooding. We need to understand these factors and respond to the challenges, working with our customers and suppliers. We are working towards increasing our understanding of potential water risks and opportunities across our supply chain that we may be able to contribute to or influence reducing or enhancing respectively. One of the key changes in the updated Environment Global Standard, released in April 2024, included an increased focus on risk and impact management, extending requirements for identifying and assessing nature-related risks to include those within BHP’s supply chain. In FY2024, BHP commissioned work to improve our process for how we understand and manage nature-related risk in the value chain.

For more information on value chain initiatives please refer to the Value chain webpage.

Non-operated assets

For information on BHP’s interests in companies and joint ventures that we do not operate refer to the non-operated joint ventures (NOJVs) information in the BHP Annual Report 2024.

Water stewardship is as vital for our NOJVs as it is for our operated assets.

We engage with our NOJVs to better understand their management of water-related risks.

We have worked with Antamina and its shareholders to secure Antamina’s commitment to align with ICMM Mining Principles.

For more information on Tailings storage facilities please refer to our Tailings storage facilities webpage.

For more information on the Samarco NOJV, refer to BHP Annual Report 2024 Operating and Financial Review 7 Samarco and our Samarco Operations webpage.

BHP Annual Report Operating and Financial Review 8 – How we manage risk describes how we manage risk across BHP, including NOJVs.

Water management can create opportunities

BHP recognises our positive environmental performance (including water stewardship) contributes to social value and the resilience of nature.

Effective water-related risk management can contribute to long-term business, social and environmental benefits, such as:

increased productivity
improved community benefits and resilience
improved water disclosure and governance
becoming a partner-of-choice to governments and communities in new and existing jurisdictions
access to resources by obtaining and retaining rights to operate and expand our current operated asset base
reduced liabilities and long-term legacy issues
increased long-term business resilience

An example of an opportunity from effective risk management is how WAIO manages dewatering. Dewatering at WAIO produces more water than is required for mining activities. This surplus water is a valuable natural resource for the region and WAIO’s strategic preference is to implement a controlled return of this water to aquifers through a managed aquifer recharge process. WAIO applies a hierarchy of water management activities, with managed aquifer recharge being considered after use and management of impacts. Managed aquifer recharge has a number of benefits. It seeks to preserve the water resource for future use by BHP or other parties, minimise our environmental footprint, promote resilience of water resources and the environment and place less impact on the cultural heritage values of the surrounding landscape, which has been an important consideration for Traditional Owners. We are acting on this opportunity via our WAIO context-based water target, which commits to prioritisation of surplus water for beneficial use to improve the sustainability of regional groundwater resources or generate social value.

BHP’s Water Stewardship Strategy seeks to leverage and develop technology solutions to prevent or significantly reduce adverse water-related impacts, increase water efficiency and deliver benefits beyond our operated assets.

We developed a roadmap of potential water technologies and are now trialling various water technologies. This roadmap identifies emerging and long-term challenges and strategic opportunities to resolve these through technology and innovation. The roadmap was developed by overlaying operated asset-level water-related risk with the water stewardship vision and objectives to leverage technology solutions that drive a step-change reduction in water-related risk and realise value creation opportunities. A Global Water Challenge was held in 2023, where technology providers submitted ideas for solutions to some of our challenges. Some examples of technologies and initiatives that are included in the roadmap include:

Olympic Dam tailings decant water treatment for reuse and to partially offset Great Artesian Basin supply
Escondida tailings storage facility water recovery/treatment for reuse
Escondida reduction in brine volume discharged from desalination plant
BMA mine-affected water treatment for reuse or discharge
Legacy assets in the United States treatment and discharge of water from acidic mine drainage and pit lakes
Western Australia Nickel recovery of minerals and water from waste brine

Refer to our Technology case study for more information.

The completion of WRSAs at our operated assets in consultation with relevant stakeholders, has identified further opportunities to collectively address shared water challenges within the regions where we operate and we have embedded some of the identified opportunities via our CBWTs. For more information refer to the Shared water challenges webpage.

For more information on water-related opportunities for creating social value refer to the Social value webpage.

Case studies

Valuing water through technology

Technology helps support our continuing efforts to use water in socially equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial ways

Protecting water resources and biodiversity

Innawally Pool is a near permanent natural surface-water pool located within the footprint of Western Australia Iron Ore (WAIO) operational activities at Jimblebar.

Featured

Why our work matters

Featured

Products

FY24 Performance

2024 financial results and operational reviews

Featured

BHP Foundation

Featured

Culture and rewards

Featured

BHP Insights

Featured

New and existing suppliers

Popular Pages

Water

Share this page

Water Stewardship Position Statement

Our ambition

Our approach and position

Governance and oversight

Engagement, disclosure and performance

Risk

Case studies

Our ambition

Our approach and position

Governance, engagement, disclosure and performance

Water stewardship strategy progress

Context-based water targets progress

Water data

Water withdrawals

Water discharges

Water recycled/reused

Other managed water

Water consumption

Changes in water storage

Water-related legal performance

Next steps

Risk

BHP and basin risk

Basin characteristics

Characteristics of basins where BHP's operated assets were located in FY20241

Our operational water-related risks

Asset-level BHP risk ranking for operational water-related risks – before controls are applied

Water risk table

Examples of operational water-related risks

Catchment risk

Dewatering risk

Extreme weather risk

Water access, sanitation and hygiene risk

Water quality risk

Closure risk

Water-related risk in the value chain

Non-operated assets

Water management can create opportunities

Valuing water through technology

Protecting water resources and biodiversity

Sustainability case studies, organisational boundary, definitions and disclaimers, and downloads

Characteristics of basins where BHP's operated assets were located in FY2024¹