Queensland

Australia

New South Wales

Tasmania

Northern Territory

Victoria

Western Australia

Australian Capital Territory

South Australia

On May 23, 2025, Queensland Conservation Council Inc's (QCC) objection to Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (BBC) Environmental Authority Amendment Application for expansion of the Lake Vermont mine in central Queensland was referred to the Land Court of Queensland (Court) for a Mining Objection Hearing (MOH). Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (the Proponent) submitted an application to amend its environmental authority (EA), A-EA-AMD-100781430 (the Application), to permit a new mining lease (MLA700080) and expand its operations in its existing leases, ML70528, ML70331, and ML70477. The current EA for the Lake Vermont Project (EPML00659513) limits coal extraction to 12 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of ROM coal. Lake Vermont primarily produces hard coking (metallurgical) coal and PCI coal for export markets. According to Project documentation, Lake Vermont Mine was expected to gradually decline from 2023, with further decreases to approximately 4 Mtpa and less from 2028 until the end of the mine life, which is currently scheduled for 2061. In 2019, information indicated that the Lake Vermont Mine contributed 8.9 million tons to the export market and was ranked as the ninth-largest supplier to the export coal market. The Application for the Lake Vermont Meadowbrook Project appears to be a proposed extension to the currently operating Lake Vermont Coal Mine. The Application proposes to extend the life of the mine by 20 years, with construction commencing in January 2025, and operational by December 2028 (based on the EIS, it is estimated that the project life span will be approximately 53 years). 

The Project proposes to provide additional product coal to maintain production levels at approximately 9 Mtpa from 2028 through to 2048. Following the completion of the underground extension project in 2048, a new open-cut pit is proposed to supplement existing operations, although production levels are expected to continue declining until the project's completion in 2055. Final mining completion at the existing Lake Vermont Mine is still expected to occur in 2061. The EIS indicates that approximately 108.6 Mt of underground ROM coal plus 13.3 Mt of open-cut ROM coal is estimated to be mined over the life of the project, producing approximately 122 Mt of total ROM coal. Based on the production estimates provided in the EIS, the project’s total lifetime carbon emissions would be 348 million tonnes CO2e. If approved, Lake Vermont could become the sixth-largest coal mine in QLD by 2028.

The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) objects to the Lake Vermont mine expansion on environmental, human rights, and sustainability grounds. It argues that the project fails to meet the objectives of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), which requires developments to enhance quality of life while safeguarding ecological processes. According to QCC, the mine expansion would instead cause long-term environmental harm.

QCC further contends that the project would unreasonably limit rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), including the rights to equality, life, property, privacy, family, and the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Granting approval in these circumstances would be incompatible with the Act.

The objections also highlight conflicts with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, biodiversity conservation, and recognition of the global climate impacts of coal mining. QCC stresses that the project would undermine Australia’s commitments under international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Finally, it argues that the proponent has not adequately addressed information requests, that the expansion is contrary to the public interest, and that the economic benefits are outweighed by the full social and environmental costs.


On September 25, 2024, the Environment Council of Central Queensland In (EnvA-cq) commenced its objection to Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd's (the applicant) environmental authority amendment application. The case will be conducted in the Queensland Land Court as a mining objection hearing (MOH). The applicant is the world's largest coal company, Glencore. Glencore is applying for an amendment to their existing environmental authority for the Rolleston Open Cut Coal Mine in central queensland's Bowen Basin so that they can expand current operations by clearing an additional 600 hectares of habitat to dig a new open cut pit. The amendment application would allow Glencore to mine an additional 2mt of product thermal coal and extend the life of the mine till 2040. The existing mine approvals allow Glencore to produce up to 19mtpa making it one of Australia's largest thermal coal mines. The extension alone will produce 82 million tonnes of carbon pollution from the combustion emissions of the coal that is exported. 

The extension project received a draft environmental authority (EA) approval by the Queensland government in July 2024. EnvA-cq is challenging the draft EA in court and seeking a recommendation from the Queensland Land Court that Glencore's application for approval be refused.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Mackay Conservation Group (MCG) have commenced legal proceedings in the Queensland Land Court, seeking the refusal of Whitehaven Coal’s Winchester South thermal and metallurgical coal mine, proposed for the Bowen Basin. ACF and MCG will argue that the court should recommend that no mining lease or environmental authority be granted for the Winchester South project – Australia’s largest proposed new coal project – due to its significant environmental and human rights impacts.  

If it goes ahead, the mine would likely: 

(a) Extract up to 17 million tonnes of thermal and metallurgical coal each year for 28 years, generating at least 583 million tonnes of climate pollution – more than the entire annual emissions of Australia. (Much of the Winchester coal would be burnt overseas but still contribute to global warming impacts in Australia.) 
(b) Spew huge volumes of super-warming, unchecked methane into the air, adding to the already severely underreported methane coming from the Bowen Basin.  
(c) Destroy at least 2,000 hectares of wildlife habitat that is home to endangered and threatened species, including koalas (destroying 242 football fields of koala habitat), the greater glider, the Australian painted snipe, the ornamental snake and squatter pigeon. (Whitehaven plans to dig six huge mine pits.) 
(d) Have an unacceptable impact on water resources, including the Isaac floodplain and groundwater aquifers. 
(e) Impact human rights due to the climate consequences on generations of Queenslanders. 
(f) The groups believe Whitehaven’s environmental history makes it an unsuitable company to operate this mine. 

The Land Court of Queensland issued its recommendation in Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5 on Mar. 20, 2025, after hearing the matter on the papers on Oct. 15, 2024. The proceeding concerned an application by Sungela Pty Ltd and Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd for a new mining lease, MLA 700061, to extend operations at the Ensham thermal coal mine in Queensland’s Central Bowen Basin. Because objections had been lodged—three remained, but none were prosecuted—the application was referred to the Court for a recommendation to the responsible Minister under section 269 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.  ￼

President P.G. Stilgoe recorded that an environmental authority covering the broader extension project had already issued, but emphasized the Court’s distinct recommendatory task under the MRA. The Court identified the standard suite of section 269(4) factors and treated the objectors’ issues—ranging from assessment-process flaws to biodiversity, groundwater, cumulative impacts, economic demand, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions/climate change—even though the objectors elected not to participate. The applicants ultimately relied on affidavits from company-connected witnesses rather than independent technical experts, prompting the Court to assess those materials with particular care when weighing their relevance and probative value.  ￼

On the statutory criteria, the Court accepted evidence that the lease area was mineralized (roughly 85 million tonnes of high-energy, low-ash thermal coal), that mining would proceed via extensions to existing underground workings with no need for new surface infrastructure, and that the proposed size, shape, and a 25-year term were otherwise suitable to realize extraction and complete rehabilitation and closure by about 2050. The Court also recorded that the lease would overlap only minimally with other resource tenures and, based on the material before it, would not disadvantage existing permit holders.  ￼

As to environmental effects, the Court considered flora, fauna, groundwater, surface water, and cumulative impacts. Based on the technical reports tendered, it accepted that predicted local environmental impacts could be managed through conditions and monitoring under the environmental authority, with minimal adverse effects anticipated if the extension proceeded as proposed.  ￼

The decisive issue was climate change. While the record included various quantifications of Scope 1–2 emissions and an estimate of total Scope 3 emissions of approximately 63.6 Mt CO₂-e over 20 years (about 3.18 Mt CO₂-e per year on average), the applicants did not persuade the Court that they had made “real and significant” progress on mitigation. In particular, the Court noted the absence of the required GHG emissions reduction management plan and a lack of concrete evidence that proposed measures (e.g., methane flaring and other efficiencies) had been implemented or advanced beyond aspiration. Given that GHG emissions from the lease would contribute, however modestly in percentage terms, to climate change, the Court determined that a positive recommendation could not be made on the evidence supplied.  ￼

The Court also addressed Queensland’s Human Rights Act 2019 (s. 58), recognizing—consistent with prior Land Court authority (Waratah)—that activities increasing GHG emissions can engage and limit protected rights, including the right to life and the protection of children. On the materials before it, and without relying on the environmental authority process to resolve human-rights balancing, the Court concluded that whether such limitations were reasonable or justifiable depended in part on credible mitigation steps—which the applicants had not adequately demonstrated.  ￼

Accordingly, on Mar. 20, 2025, the Land Court recommended that MLA 700061 “not be approved unless and until” the applicants show real and significant progress toward mitigating their GHG emissions, and directed the Registrar to provide the reasons to the Minister administering the MRA.  ￼

Geography

Queensland

Recent cases