The decisions come as mining peak bodies push to restrict environmental groups using vexatious litigation in the courts to delay the approval of major coal mining and infrastructure projects.

The Queensland Land Court recommended that Carmichael proceed, subject to additional conditions. The conditions recommended prior to the granting of a mining lease add to some of the strictest conditions ever handed down for a project of its kind in Queensland, and the strictest ever handed down for a project under federal law, according to Adani.

“This significant decision recognises the thorough, science and evidence-based work Adani and its partners have undertaken over more than five years to demonstrate the company’s commitment to complying with both Queensland and Australia’s world’s best practice environmental protections,” the company said in a statement.

“Adani welcomes the decision, which recognises the pivotal role the resources sector plays in Queensland, subject to strict regulations.”

Queensland Resources Council CEO Michael Roche said the Land Court approval, while welcome, immediately raised concern of further litigation from environmental group Coast and Country.

“Coast and Country are serial abusers of the Queensland court system and we fear that they will not respect the Land Court’s recommendation as the final word,” he said.

“Adani has become the target of green activists’ vexatious litigation, having already faced two federal appeals and a string of cases against the Abbot Point expansion.

“And no sooner did the Land Court pass down its judgement, than the Environmental Defenders Office was tweeting for donations to fund federal court action.

“The activists’ disrupt and delay tactics are clearly outlined in the their anti-coal playbook Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom, and continue to deny Queenslanders thousands of needed jobs and millions of dollars to help pay for state services such as schools, police and hospitals.”

The high calorific value coal to be mined at Carmichael has an ideal ash and sulphur content for use in the latest generation supercritical generators in India, which are significantly more efficient than those typically operating in Australia, helping to deliver more energy with less coal, and fewer emissions, according to Adani.

“Importantly, Adani has consistently said that these significant benefits for Queensland and for Australia, reflecting the confidence the company has in these jurisdictions as a secure source of low cost, high quality energy, were to be gained across all three projects, while the Land Court was only considering the benefits of the mine across individual stages of the mine’s life in isolation,” the company said.

“Adani has said for many months that what is required for projects such as these to proceed is certainty. While additional activist-led challenges to detailed, thorough, independent and science-based approvals loom, today’s Land Court decision is overwhelmingly a positive for Adani, and a step in the right direction for jobs in Queensland and exports from our state.”

Turning to Baralaba, Cockatoo’s amendment application for an environmental authority (EA) relates to the proposed expansion of the existing Baralaba coal mine, which is located about 5 km north of the township of Baralaba.

The existing EA allows for extraction of coal up to 1 million tonnes per annum of run-of-mine coal. The proposed Baralaba North continued operations project contemplates expanding production to 3.5Mtpa.

This is part of the Baralaba Expansion Project, a prescribed project under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. The project includes a new Train Loadout Facility (TLOF). Coal would be trucked to this point.

“The consideration of the evidence presented leads to the conclusion that the draft environmental authority sufficiently addresses the risks to the environment,” the Court said in its judgement.

“The evidence does not support a conclusion that Cockatoo Coal Limited does not have the financial or technical capabilities required. The applicant companies are in administration but a restructure is, on the evidence, reasonably likely to be put in place to allow the present condition to be remedied.

“The evidence is that, due to the financial assurance scheme, it is not likely that costs and responsibilities of site remediation would be borne by the state.

“The existence of the financial assurance scheme causes arrangements for remediation of abandoned mines at public expense to be of little if any significance.”