A Flawed Resubmission Pathway

Rather than lodge a new project application following the LEC's ruling, Glencore resubmitted on the same modification pathway — effectively leapfrogging the LEC ruling by reverting to the original 2008 approval (PA 08_0184) as its baseline. This avoids the full scrutiny, independent oversight of the Independent Planning Commission, and third-party merit appeal rights in the LEC that a new project application would require.

The adequacy of climate impact assessment is precisely what MDEG successfully challenged in the LEC in November 2025. Using the same modification pathway for the resubmission, with incremental improvements rather than a fresh assessment, does not resolve that inadequacy.

MDEG's analysis of the new RtS finds that while some improvements have been made — Mod 8 is now at least acknowledged, and updated GHG targets have been included — the mine's responses to our key objections remain procedurally compliant but substantively evasive. The 45% cumulative emissions increase from Mod 6 and Mod 8 combined is never engaged with. Glencore cannot argue against cumulative assessment of environmental impacts while simultaneously aggregating the entire UCC operation to justify its economic case. Mod 6 alone — a two-year extension employing an unchanged workforce — contributes negligibly compared to the jobs the CWO REZ urgently needs.

The Amended Mod 6 Proposal:

The amended Mod 6 application has finalised the mine plan and now identifies the exact location of surface infrastructure and vegetation clearing. This highlights a key failure of the earlier approval, which included nine different infrastructure layout options, demonstrating that no final mine plan existed at the time it was approved and later overturned by the Court.

While the mine plan has now been refined, the amended proposal remains fundamentally flawed.

Subsidence from underground mining, combined with clearing for roads, pipelines, bores and ventilation shafts, will cause permanent damage to the landscape. The amended proposal focuses narrowly on updating select information and fails to reconsider the broader environmental consequences of extending mining in this region.

Critically, the proposal does not acknowledge that Mod 8 cannot proceed without Mod 6. By treating them as separate, small modifications, Glencore avoids the proper scrutiny of a new project application. This allows cumulative impacts to be overlooked and removes community merit appeal rights in the Land and Environment Court. It also removes the independent oversight of the Independent Planning Commission. This approach undermines transparent decision-making and weakens environmental oversight.

Amended proposal Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Glencore does not publicly report methane emissions from Ulan Mine and maintains that the operation is a low emitter, asserting there are no feasible measures to reduce fugitive methane emissions.

The amended RtS shows marginal improvement in this area. For the first time, Glencore has provided specific Scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction targets (FY2030: 0.084 Mt CO₂-e; FY2035: 0.012 Mt CO₂-e) and references a NARCLiM-based climate impact assessment using NSW Government regional climate projections. However, these improvements do not resolve the fundamental failure: Scope 3 emissions — the combustion of exported coal, representing 99.4% of the project's total climate footprint — are still not adequately assessed in terms of their local environmental, social and economic impacts.

This assessment does not meet the requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It fails to properly assess the environmental, social and economic impacts of all greenhouse gas emissions, including Scope 3 emissions, as required by law following the Mt Pleasant Mine decision. The NSW Net Zero Commission's Coal Mining Emissions Spotlight Report (December 2025) directly addresses this issue; the mine's response is to dismiss it as singling out coal unfairly.

Without full disclosure and assessment of emissions, the climate impacts of this project cannot be properly understood or justified.

Amended proposal Impacts on Biodiversity:

The amended Mod 6 proposal will directly impact threatened species habitat, including:

• Large-eared Pied Bat
• Eastern Cave Bat
• Powerful Owl
• Barking Owl
• Southern Myotis

The Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat use sandstone escarpment for breeding and roosting. Subsidence from underground mining poses a direct risk of rockfall and cave collapse in this habitat. The amended RtS now names these species and undertakes a Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) assessment — concluding none face SAII from Mod 6 alone. However, this assessment is conducted in isolation. The combined subsidence footprint across Mod 6 and Mod 8 on the same sandstone escarpment system has never been assessed. The credit calculation for subsidence impacts on threatened microbat habitat in the BDAR and CPHR is not supported by the evidence.

These species are already experiencing cumulative habitat loss across multiple coal mines in the Mudgee region, including the proposed Moolarben Open Cut 3 extension. These cumulative impacts have not been assessed as SAII across all three mines.

The proposal also fails to assess the cumulative loss of Box Gum Woodland, a critically endangered ecological community, across the region as an SAII entity.

Amended proposal Water Impacts:

Underground mining causes subsidence and land collapse that permanently damages groundwater systems. These systems store water in the landscape and provide base flows to rivers and creeks.

When combined with Mod 8, this expansion will result in a significant additional loss of flow to the Talbragar River. Allowing this modification to be made separately from  Mod 8 does not allow for cumulative water loss assessment.

The Talbragar River is a major tributary of the Macquarie River in the Murray–Darling Basin and flows downstream of Burrendong Dam. These flows are directly connected to the internationally significant Macquarie Marshes. Ongoing groundwater damage will reduce river flows long after mining has ceased.

The Federal Independent Expert Science Committee (IESC) has previously made significant comments:

"Modelled predictions of water interception from Ulan Mine have consistently underestimated impacted volumes. The Independent Expert Scientific Committee has limited confidence in the groundwater model used to predict impacts from this mine on surface and groundwater."

Original Independent Expert Advisory Panel on Mining (IEAPM) report findings:

1. Additional monitoring bores required to measure groundwater interception
2. Inadequate trigger levels for impacts on groundwater systems
3. Inadequate monitoring of impacts on private bores
4. The groundwater model is inadequate for predicting long-term impacts
5. Significant risk of drawdown beneath Mona Creek in all underlying groundwater systems
6. A formal peer review of the groundwater model is required

Glencore's response to the IEAPM findings.

Key issues with Glencore response to IEAPM:

Significant issues were raised by the NSW Independent Panel mainly concerning subsidence and impacts on groundwater. The Glencore response is totally inadequate proposing that any additional monitoring should occur after mining has commenced. Monitoring damage after the fact is not a sustainable way to protect water sources and the environment.

 Problems with impacts on groundwater:

• The groundwater model does not capture delayed drawdown responses post mining – when they are most likely to happen
• Impacts on private bores post mining is not modelled
• Additional reporting is required for each type of impacted water source
• Long term impacts on groundwater over time are not being measured
• Additional mapping is required to identify Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems relying on shallow groundwater

It is essential that a Water Management Plan, including Surface Water Management and Groundwater Management, that covers Mod 6 + Mod 8 impacts be completed before a determination can be made on this expansion of the Ulan Mine.

The current process for approving large underground mining operations, like Ulan Mine, allows for groundwater models to be ‘recalibrated’ or adjusted if drawdown parameters have been exceeded or varied. This approach does not adequately assess the long-term impacts on the groundwater system over time.

Amended proposal Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:

The proposal does not adequately assess the cumulative loss of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Ulan area. There is extensive evidence of continuous Wiradjuri occupation and enduring spiritual connection to Country. The amended RtS provides a more detailed heritage response than the original, acknowledging Wiradjuri spiritual connection and noting agreement from Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation elders. However, agreement from one Registered Aboriginal Party does not constitute comprehensive cumulative heritage assessment across the region.

A significant number of cultural heritage values will be impacted by Mod 6, with far greater losses occurring when combined with Mod 8. These cumulative impacts have not been properly identified or assessed.

Amended proposal is Not Justified and Incompatible with Regional Transition:

There is no demonstrated need to extend coal mining in the region to support local jobs. Glencore's economic justification aggregates employment and regional benefit across the entire UCC operation — but Mod 6 alone is a two-year extension employing an unchanged workforce. Assessed on its own terms, as Glencore insists environmental impacts must be, its employment contribution is negligible.

Coal mining is competing for skilled labour urgently needed in construction, housing and renewable energy. The Central West is experiencing a major labour shortage as workers are required for the development of the Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (CWO REZ). Glencore's own RtS attempts to counter this by citing research arguing that renewable energy jobs are short-term and construction-focused — but this ignores the long-term operational workforce the CWO REZ requires, and fails to quantify whether a two-year coal extension outweighs the opportunity cost to the renewable transition.

The NSW Government has established the Central West Future Jobs and Investment Authority to support the transition away from coal. The Mudgee region has strong opportunities to diversify its economy, but further coal expansion will slow this transition and lock in long-term environmental damage.

In Conclusion:

The amended Mod 6 proposal remains inadequate and should not be approved. While the mine now acknowledges Mod 8 and has improved its GHG assessment, the core objections remain unaddressed. The mine's responses are procedurally compliant but substantively evasive — and the decision to resubmit on the modification pathway rather than as a new project continues to deny the community the scrutiny, appeal rights and independent oversight this expansion warrants.

Mod 6 and Mod 8 are interdependent and must be assessed together as a single ‘new project’, not two separate ‘modifications’, to fully understand their cumulative impacts on climate, water, biodiversity and cultural heritage.

Further expansion of the Ulan Coal Mine is incompatible with a safe climate, healthy water systems, and a just transition for the Central West.

Key points of objection:

1. Must be assessed together with the Ulan Mod 8 proposal as a new project to provide robust cumulative impact information.
2. The amendment report still fails to fully identify the impacts of the increased greenhouse gas emissions on the local environment, community and economy, as required under NSW planning law.
3. The proposal will produce an additional 18.8 million tonnes of coal and when combined with Mod 8 (additional 43 MT) there will be over a 45% increase in total emissions above current approved operations at Ulan Mine.
4. There is no assessment of cumulative impacts from existing mine approvals or expansion proposals across the three Mudgee Mines: Ulan, Moolarben, Wilpinjong
5. The cumulative loss of threatened species habitat, significant Aboriginal cultural heritage values, water from the landscape and flows to creeks and rivers, and threats to amenity and livelihoods of neighbours has not been assessed
6. The proposal is within the CWOREZ and is competing for regional workforce urgently needed for new industries in the Central West
7. The proposal will place further pressure on already stressed surface and ground water sources within the Murray Darling Basin