Glencore and Yancoal’s reworked expansion of their Hunter Valley Coal Operations mine would still be the largest ever in NSW’s history.
It comes as the Albanese Government today prepares to release its 2035 emissions reduction target range. Lock the Gate Alliance says if built, the HVO expansion would create so much direct climate pollution, it would likely force other industries to make greater cuts to their own emissions.
Glencore and Yancoal recently resubmitted expansion plans after the JV came under fire from NSW Government agencies for its original plan amid concerns it would make NSW’s emissions reduction targets unachievable. Revised expansion documents can be found under the “amendments” tab here. The public feedback period ends on September 25.
While the JV reduced the size of its planned expansion and its operating lifespan, Lock the Gate has analysed the last decade and a half of single coal project decisions in the state, and has found the revised HVO expansion would still be NSW’s largest ever coal project if approved. Spreadsheet here.
Project documents show:
-
Glencore and Yancoal plan to mine 429 million tonnes of additional coal for the new expansion (see table C.2).
-
This would produce more than 15 million tonnes of Scope 1 and 2 emissions (see table 6.2), and
-
More than 793 million tonnes of Scope 3 CO2e emissions (see table 6.3), which is equivalent to almost 7 times NSW’ total annual emissions from all sources
The documents show the revised HVO project will rapidly increase direct emissions, with a near doubling of Scope 1 and 2 annual climate pollution (See Table 6.2) as soon as the project gets underway (Direct emissions at HVO last year were 695,867 - see Table 6-24 from HVO’s latest Annual Review.)
Overall, the project will emit a total of 4.4Mt CO2e direct emissions up to 2030, which will add to the serious shortfall NSW is facing in meeting its 2030 target, and threaten emissions targets at a federal level.
Lock the Gate Alliance NSW Coordinator Nic Clyde said, “This single project would produce so much direct climate pollution, it would jeopardise existing climate targets, let alone the emissions reductions Australia must make if we are to remain committed to reducing the harms of climate change.
“The millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution this mine is going to release ahead of 2030 means every other industry and sector would need to make greater emissions cuts.
“On the day Australia makes its next important climate commitment, Glencore and Yancoal are simultaneously proposing this million tonne per year pollution factory.
“Communities right around Australia are already suffering due to the increasingly severe impacts of fossil fuel-driven global warming.
“The Federal Government's Climate Risk Assessment this week outlined the terrifying consequences of a business as usual approach to mining and burning fossil fuels. Expansions like Glencore and Yancoal’s HVO project have no place in a world that is grappling with the urgent need to drastically cut carbon emissions.”
ENDS
Background:
HVO’s expansion directly contradicts the state’s climate act and guidelines.
The NSW Guide for Large Emitters requires coal projects to show a similar emissions reduction trajectory as the NSW emissions reduction targets, which is a 50% reduction by 2030.
“When setting emission goals, the EPA expects the proponent to develop goals that are achievable, explain how they will be achieved, and why they are a meaningful contribution to NSW emission reduction targets in the context of the industry sector or economy. We expect them to be broadly consistent with NSW's net zero targets.”
The revised plan also follows the recent landmark Mt Pleasant Court of Appeal decision, which ruled the costs of the impact of climate change on local communities as a result of coal mining must be evaluated. This decision has fundamentally changed the way coal projects must be assessed in NSW.
Glencore and Yancoal’s latest application does not provide a proper assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of climate change on the locality with respect to the court’s ruling on Mt Pleasant.
In fact, its revised economic assessment for the expansion categorically states the proponents have not considered Scope 3 emissions (P46), meaning it totally ignores the Mt Pleasant decision and its implications. Incredibly, the JV claims: “GHG associated with the burning of coal from this facility were excluded from this assessment. This is because the EIA guidelines and Technical notes do not require consideration of Scope 3 emissions.”