BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation

BHP Coal Pty Ltd, together with related companies under the BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), sought an amendment to its existing Environmental Authority (EA) for the Caval Ridge metallurgical coal mine, located south of Moranbah, Queensland. The amendment, filed in 2023, proposed extending open-cut mining at Horse Pit, establishing an out-of-pit dump, and realigning infrastructure.

On May 6, 2023, the Environment Council of Central Queensland (ECCQ) filed objections to the draft EA prepared by the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (the statutory party). ECCQ argued that the project would exacerbate climate change, threaten endangered species, impact water systems, create an unmanageable final void, and cause cumulative environmental harm. It also argued that a new Environmental Impact Statement should have been required.

The Court held a hearing on Mar. 19, 2024, followed by additional submissions on Mar. 22 and Mar. 28, 2024. ECCQ did not appear or provide evidence to support its objections.

In its decision of Apr. 16, 2024, the Court considered the objections under section 191 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Expert evidence demonstrated that fugitive methane and CO₂ emissions from the project would represent less than 3% of total project emissions and a very small proportion of Queensland’s and global totals. The Court acknowledged the accepted reality of anthropogenic climate change and noted its earlier finding in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) that fossil fuel projects engage the right to life. However, it distinguished this case from Waratah, emphasizing that the project involved metallurgical coal, considered essential for steelmaking and the renewable energy transition, rather than thermal coal for electricity generation.

The Court found that BHP had made public and enforceable commitments to reduce operational GHG emissions and that proposed new EA conditions requiring emissions reporting were unnecessary. It also accepted BHP’s evidence on water, rehabilitation, and threatened species, finding that impacts were manageable through offsets and existing conditions.

Under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Queensland), the Court considered whether rights to life, property, privacy, cultural heritage, and children’s protection were limited. It found that although the right to life was theoretically engaged by the project’s GHG emissions, the limitation was proportionate given the economic and social benefits and the relatively small emissions profile.

The Land Court recommended approval of the amended Environmental Authority subject to the draft conditions.