About
This report analyses the climate impact of Whitehaven’s coal mining portfolio across Australia over the next two decades and the associated methane footprint.
Executive summary
Whitehaven’s methane footprint
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas released during coal mining, with a short term climate impact 82.5 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Chris Wright Climate Strategy Advisor, Ember
At the beginning of a critical decade to combat climate change, and less than 1 year after Australia joined the Global Methane Pledge to reduce emissions by 30%, Whitehaven is planning to potentially double their methane emissions between now and 2030. This flies in the face of Australia’s climate commitments, and asks serious questions about the amount of risk these expansion plans pose.
Company portfolio
Whitehaven’s emissions set to double by 2030
Whitehaven has plans to ramp up coal mining over the next decade, doubling its annual fugitive methane emissions in the process.
In this chapter:
The company is also planning a significant expansion of their coal production. There are currently two new mining projects planned to commence by 2025 – Winchester South and the Vickery Extension Project (Vickery).
Winchester South is proposed to be Whitehaven’s first greenfield coal mine in Queensland, and is planning to operate until 2055. Whitehaven plans to begin construction of the Vickery Extension project from June 2023 at the Vickery mine in North West NSW, with operations to commence mid-2024 until 2050. In addition, Whitehaven is also seeking approval for a nine year extension to the existing Maules Creek mine in NSW until 2043, and considering opportunities to expand mining in the area North West of their existing Narrabri’s mine.
If these proposed expansions are to proceed, they will emit an additional 18,000 tonnes of methane per year over the next 20 years. This would lead to cumulative emissions of up to 463,000 tonnes of methane by 2050, which has the equivalent short term climate impact of 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or the annual carbon dioxide emissions of New Zealand (with LULUCF).
In their EIS for Winchester South Whitehaven “committed to evaluating further opportunities for Scope 1 and 2 emissions reductions” but does not consider it “feasible” to mitigate any of its methane emissions. Similarly, in their EIS for Vickery Extension Project, they have not identified any plans to reduce their methane emissions.
Whitehaven Coal is also yet to develop a decarbonisation plan or set any company wide mitigation targets, well behind other major players in the industry.
Estimating methane
Discrepancies in Whitehaven’s estimates
Across Whitehaven’s coal mines, there are clear transparency gaps concerning their existing methane estimates.
In this chapter:
Whitehaven’s methane emissions could be almost five times as large, with their existing and proposed mines emitting up to 6 million tonnes of methane by 2050.
Our analysis has incorporated company-based methane estimates into our forward projections to 2030 and 2050. However, we believe these projections may be underestimating the true scale of Whitehaven’s potential methane pollution due, in part, to inadequate measurement methods under Australia’s greenhouse and energy reporting scheme.
Whitehaven estimates and reports that all of its mines emit methane at a rate significantly lower than Australia’s State-based emissions factors, neighbouring mines in their respective regions, or external estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM). By contrast, GEM estimates the methane intensity of coal by taking into account location, coal type and mine depth. While there are data gaps and limitations to this methodology, GEM’s estimates indicate that Whitehaven’s methane emissions could be emitting up to 6 million tonnes of methane by 2050.
Recommendations
A transparent plan to Net Zero
Whitehaven’s expansion plans are in direct conflict with the IEA’s global roadmap to net zero. Furthermore, the lack of transparency and third party verification make it difficult to substantiate the full extent of Whitehaven’s methane emissions, yearly variability of that pollution, or the potential to mitigate these emissions in line with the Global Methane Pledge and Australia’s climate targets.
-
01
Improve Data Transparency and Reporting
Ember recommends that Whitehaven take immediate action to improve their emissions data transparency. This includes providing detailed information on each mine’s estimated and measured methane emissions, and the methods used to generate those figures. This should be standardised across Whitehaven’s portfolio to demonstrate best practice corporate transparency, ensuring that regulators, investors and the public can be confident in the integrity of Whitehaven’s reported emissions.
-
02
Invest in Third Party Verification
We recommend that Whitehaven invest in a third party verification programme across all of their existing coal mines. Third party verification, based on diverse and direct methane measurement technologies, including remote monitoring methods, will improve the integrity of Whitehaven’s reported emissions across their portfolio. Verification programmes also generate important co-benefits, including enhancing the identification of both gassy seams and opportunities for methane abatement. This would contribute to Whitehaven delivering on its corporate commitment to identify and implement measures to reduce emissions at each point of their value chain.
-
03
Invest in Diversification and a Just Transition
We recommend that Whitehaven proactively respond to the IEA’s Net Zero By 2050 roadmap and commit to the diversification and decarbonisation of their portfolio. Whitehaven should prioritise divestment of their most methane intense assets first and develop a Just Transition pathway for their existing thermal coal assets. We recommend against any new coal mines or expansions, as this is incompatible with a net zero by 2050 pathway as set out by the IEA in its Net Zero By 2050 roadmap.
-
04
Investment in Significant Methane Abatement Measures
We urge Whitehaven to implement the recommendations from any fugitive emissions abatement studies they have undertaken (as emphasised in their latest sustainability report). Based on IEA cost estimates, methane abatement has been achieved at both open cut and underground mines in Australia for approximately AUD$1 per kilogram of methane.
We recommend Whitehaven invest in ambitious methane abatement measures that are in line with IEA, IPCC and Climate Analytics 1.5 degree pathways, delivering a 75% reduction in Whitehaven’s portfolio-wide methane emissions by 2030. Last year, Ember outlined opportunities for Australia’s coal sector to meet this reduction pathway.
Supporting Material
Methodology
Ember calculated methane intensities from Australian coal mines by compiling data from measured emissions, and compared them to the estimated emissions from Whitehaven mines. Our sources include academic papers reporting on methane content in coals at open cut mines in Australia from research by Saghafi et al., data reported to the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) by underground mines, and estimates from satellite data (Sadvarte et al. and CarbonMapper).
The methane intensities reported by Whitehaven, are also compared to estimates by Global Energy Monitor (GEM). A detailed methodology, and sources can be found in the Supplementary materials.
The average annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of a typical passenger vehicle was estimated using 2021 data from Carbon Dioxide Emissions Intensity for New Australian Light Vehicles 2021 research by the National Transport Commission. Data on the average distance travelled per year by a typical vehicle in Australia was taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, 2020. Ember notes that the average distance travelled by vehicles in the financial year 2019 – 2020 may have been affected by COVID restrictions, but this is the latest available data for Australia.
Supplementary materials
In general, a mine’s methane intensity will increase relative to the depth of the coal mined. Although there are exceptions to this rule as the methane intensity of coal can vary significantly between regions, basins and coal mines.
As far as the authors are aware, the methane emission factors used by Whitehaven have not been independently verified, nor have any on-site methane emissions measurements taken place at the open-cut mines to confirm company estimates.
Global Warming Potential
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure to express the effects of GHGs in CO2 equivalent terms. Given that CH4 absorbs much more energy when in the atmosphere, but has a shorter lifetime than CO2, the IPCC considers its impact over 20 years (GWP = 82.5) and over 100 years (GWP = 29.8). One of the shortcomings of this metric is that it assumes a constant value of methane’s effects over time, when in reality it varies significantly.
Historically, the 100-year value has been used by Governments and in major international agreements on the basis that global warming is a long term challenge.
At Ember, we propose to use the 20-year GWP. Climate change is an emergency, and the next 20 years are critical with regards to climate action. Methane’s short atmospheric lifetime means emissions reductions can reduce global heating in the near term.
Coal methane intensity from Australian coal mines
Ember compiled methane emissions data from coal mines in Australia from the following sources:
- Scope 1 emissions from underground coal mines reporting to the Clean Energy Regulator were used to estimate mine methane intensity. Methane was assumed to be responsible for 80% of reported Scope 1 emissions.
- Gas content at open cut coal mines was compiled from the academic paper by Sagahfi et al. 2013 “Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from open-cut coal mining: application to the Sydney Basin “
- Estimates of methane emissions from satellite data were compiled from the research paper by P. Sadavarte et al., 2021 “Methane Emissions from Super-emitting Coal Mines in Australia quantified using TROPOMI Satellite Observations”.
- Other satellite data was gathered from estimates of methane emissions fluxes of plumes detected in Australia by Carbon Mapper. The methane emissions detected are assumed to be constant, and calculated as yearly emissions.
Methane emission estimates were compared against best estimates for annual coal production and depth of coal per mine. Coal production and depth were determined through Annual Reports, EIS estimates and company websites.
Coal methane intensity of Whitehaven coal mines
Calculations of methane intensity of Whitehavens coal mines is based on data from Annual reports and EIS documents. When not specified, methane was assumed to be 100% of fugitive emissions.
Global Energy Monitor Estimates
Global Energy Monitor employs its Global Coal Mine Tracker to estimate methane emissions at individual mine levels worldwide, aggregating the data on national and global scales. The tracker monitors operational coal mines producing 1 million tonnes or more per year, and smaller operations with available data, providing baseline estimates for coal mine methane emissions. These estimates utilise mine-level activity data, such as production, operating depth, methane content at depth, and emissions factors, following the peer-reviewed Model for Calculating Coal Mine Methane (MC2M) methodology. In cases where precise coal rank and depth data is lacking, supplemental estimates are included for underground and surface operations.
Werris Creek Closure
The projections in this report are based on Whitehaven’s formalised projection updates, Environmental Impact Statements and Mining Licences. For Werris Creek mine, there is a potential for the mine’s reserves to be fully extracted by the end of 2024, however Whitehaven has not announced the mine’s early closure, or cancelled their mining licence. We note that if the production at Werris Creek ceases in 2024, the projected emissions would decrease by 5,357 tonnes of methane per year from 2025 to 2032. This would not impact the other outcomes within this report.
Disclaimer
The findings in this report are based on Whitehaven’s reported emissions and estimates pursuant to Australia’s greenhouse and energy reporting scheme. That scheme adheres to UNFCCC reporting requirements recommended by the IPCC, but does not reflect industry best practice methane measurement, reporting or verification as highlighted by UNECE, and may produce inaccurate methane emissions estimates.
We have noted where reported emissions or estimates may be substantially lower than the actual amount of methane released. This information has been prepared as information or education use only, and does not constitute financial, legal or other professional advice.
The information in this report has been prepared using the material outlined below and although the findings in this report are based on an analysis of that material, no warranty is made as to the completeness, accuracy or reliability of the statements or representations that arise from the material gathered to conduct this analysis. Ember did not have access to Whitehaven’s internal emissions data. Whitehaven was contacted for comment prior to the publication of this report.
Acknowledgements
Annika Reynolds played a critical role in developing policy elements of this report. Eleanor Whittle, Rini Sucahyo and Ye Yuan all played key roles in editing and improving this work. Chelsea Bruce-lockhart and Reynaldo Dizon developed and refined all of the data visualisations.
Header imageWhitehaven’s Narrabri underground coal mine, western New South Wales, Australia.
Credit: cbphoto / Alamy Stock Photo
