Cobbora Coal Mine

I have made no donations of $1000 or more to any politicians in the last TWO YEARS.



Looking at the Executive Summary 28 pages.



It says the coal can be . . . "extract the coal without unacceptable social and environmental impacts." YES extraction can be made to sound reasonable but burning the coal will be unacceptable no matter who burns it or where it gets burned. When we have a manageable and safe way of burning it then perhaps plans can be changed.



ES1.2 "the government announced it would need"......what about wind, concentrating solar thermal or solar tower? All sustainable not adding to damage already done by burning more fossil fuel.



ES1.5 "NSW Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979" is clearly unacceptable for a project lasting until 2037.



ES3 did these people know so little about the unacceptable problems of burning any more fossil fuels? What about the futures of to-days children and their children?



ES3.1.2 groundwater is a scarce commodity. It might have helped photo-synthesis by plants to recover CO2. It will be reduced for 50 years. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.



ES3.3.4 JOBS ETC. Sustainable electricity would also provide jobs and skills.



ES4.1.1 "the project will not be a hazardous or offensive development." NONSENSE



ES5.1 . .. "This will be achieved through implementation of an environmental management system that will ensure the commitments in this EA are met.. . and contributions to partnerships with physical and social infrastructure providers." NONSENSE



ES6.2 . . . "help provide affordable electricity." BY WHOSE CALCULATIONS IF YOU ADD MORE FOSSIL CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE.



ES6.3 . ."monitoring land use not co-ordinated." At times it has been and in future more might be done on the farm land until 2035. Coal Mining will be detrimental for more than a couple of decades.



ES6.4 nothing is said about continuing to contribute to global warming by providing more fossil fuel to burn in a completely unacceptable manner.



ES7 . . nothing is said about continuing to contribute to global warming by providing more fossil fuel to burn in a completely unacceptable manner.



Let us start helping to make the future better not worse.





Three months ago I contributed the following in which I have now included three minor adjustments. In the last three months people have been more conscious of the costs of the increased frequency of extreme weather events and saying the problems seem to be worse than the earlier expert forecasts.



Cobbora Coal Project

John J Swainston B.Vet.Med. (London. 1961)
48a Sunrise Rd. Palm Beach, NSW 2108
Email: [email protected]
Phone -61-2-9974 4420

This Cobbora Coal Project should not go ahead.

NSW Government should decide that this fossil fuel should be left safely underground without any disturbance.

The NSW Government should show others that it can accept responsibility for making a decision for the benefit of global humanity.

The Planning Assessment Commission is presented with the planning submission based on current legislation and they will need to make a recommendation for mining coal until about 2035. It is now abundantly clear that our current legislation and international agreements are no longer competent for decisions on fossil fuels that are now underground. What will happen when in the next few years people want to stop the mining and demand compensation for those who have suffered from the ill effects of the mining and burning of fossil fuels?

Rejecting this Cobbora Coal Project could be a small step in the right direction. It would say the coal should be left safely where it is and no one anywhere will have the benefit of the coal. People will need to find other work opportunities. If less fossil fuel is burned then fewer people (estimated to be about 150 million) of the globe will be forced to move from their productive farmlands in river land deltas. Greenhouse gasses are useful plant nutrients but man has failed to make adequate use of them due to shortages of global water and new farmland. Stopping this coal mine will help slow down the escalating wild weather events, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, flooding and bushfires which are all increasingly damaging.

This decision goes to the Commission who may see the presentation and think it deserves approval. This is the first step. The plan offers more cheap coal for cheap electricity and maybe more exports of coal from NSW and Australia. This will be more grist to the mill. Sell the coalmines and go on burning more fossil fuels. And so we see how competing politicians have the power and how they may play their power games as the process goes from the Commissioners to the politicians. Lots of our current legislation is out of date and not appropriate for the needs to give up burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies are worth hundreds of billions of dollars and they have to grow to justify their jobs. Are these people making decisions for themselves or for global humanity? Which of these people know about "The Limits to Growth"?

You can search lots of web sites and sources of government information and none of them provide the whole story or convey the urgency with which everyone should be giving up burning fossil fuels. Make sure you look at reports from http://www.ipcc.ch/ Risk management at http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ Go to http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ because they have shown that Australia could stop all use of fossil fuels and do it within 10 years with currently available wind turbines and concentrating solar thermal energy at a cost of about $10 per household per week plus the needs for electric cars. Then Wikipedia, in USA: http://www.epa.gov/ and NGOs or do a Google search for "climate change deniers list" and see some distractions. The fact is that every country has their own history, politics, fears, skills and resources. The sooner people can stop increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then the sooner people can decide what else can be attempted.

Australia applied a carbon levy on 1 July 2012. Attached at the end of this submission is an announcement from The Hon Mark Dreyfus having a dig at Greg Hunt on 5th December 2012. There is no mention here of China's one child policy operating since 1979. Also there is no history of nuclear power since 1954. Nuclear energy has been quite safe and now supplies about 19% of electricity in USA. USA also has 6.4% of electricity produced by hydroelectricity.

About 1859 John Tyndall reported the potential warming effect of burning fossil fuels increasing the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall. Since about 1859 Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. The recent increases have been about two parts per billion each year. Sea level could rise about a metre by 2060. So far global temperatures have increased about 0.8 degrees centigrade, most of that in the last 30 years. Estimates are that temperatures are likely to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade until 2100. Newspaper reports this year have dramatically demonstrated that the adverse consequences of global warming seem to be exceeding forecasts. Can this deterioration be stopped or even reduced? Most of this problem is due to burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The fact is that the sooner we can stop burning 90% or more of these fossil fuels the sooner this deterioration can be slowed down and the sooner people can address the problems of people and domestic animals over-populating the globe. In 1972 D. Meadows et al. had published a book "The Limits to Growth" which has since had supportive reviews after 30 and 40 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

Current estimates are that in the next ten to thirty years Australia could be supplying around eleven percent of global demand for coal and natural gas. If Australia leaves these fossil fuels untouched and in the ground then withdrawing these supplies from world markets will help escalate world prices for these fossil fuels and make renewable energy more competitive.

The fact is that the sooner we all stop burning fossil fuels then the sooner we can improve our chances in this world. Rejecting The Cobbora Coal Project is an opportunity for NSW Government to make a small contribution to global wellbeing. The issue is how many of the global population do we all help and how soon? Globally we now have just over seven billion people. Will we get to the nine billion people anticipated or will global population start heading for the one and a quarter billion we had in the year 1900?



From Hon Mark Dreyfus, 5th December 2012:-


THE HON MARK DREYFUS QC MP

Cabinet Secretary

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation

5 December, 2012




OPINION PIECE - THE PUNCH



Greg Hunt, Where Are You? Still Nowhere Credible On Climate Change



A notable absence of truth in the climate change debate has come from the Opposition's Greg Hunt all year, and his latest misrepresentations are true to form.

No personal offence to Greg, but it does pay to do your homework occasionally. I have represented Australia at many of this year's international climate change negotiations, so attending Doha on behalf of the Climate Change Minister is fairly logical and not so remarkable.

We understand your motives. You don't have much to hang your hat on.

First, let's deal with the Opposition's pretence - or is it ignorance? - that there is no international action.

As we sit here in Doha, Australia is working with governments from 197 countries to create a new international agreement by 2015 that will legally bind all nations - developed and developing - in the monumental task of cutting carbon pollution to slow down climate change. Yes, Greg, you might have missed it, but that does include the US, China, the EU and India. They're all here today. It's not a hallucination.

While the world puts together the nuts and bolts of this agreement, the vast array of action to price carbon across individual countries is escalating year on year.

Rather than just make it up like the Opposition, let's rely on a sprinkling of facts and figures.

Next year, more than 50 national or sub-national regions, including all of Europe and beyond, will have emissions trading schemes or a carbon price, covering a combined population of around 1.1 billion people.

China is now the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, complementing emissions trading starting up in seven cities and provinces. These "micro schemes", as Greg Hunt calls them, cover 250 million people and represent the world's second largest emissions trading scheme, which China intends to expand nationally after 2015.

The Opposition also clings obsessively to the misguided idea that the United States is not acting and will not act. This would be news to President Obama.

"I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behaviour and carbon emissions."

"Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere. But we haven't done as much as we need to."

"So you can expect that you'll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward." - President Barack Obama, 14 November, 2012

A hostile Congress refusing to pass climate laws has resulted in the Obama Administration pursuing less economically efficient measures to cut pollution. It is not by preference as Greg Hunt wrongly asserts.

And for the record, note the emissions trading schemes in 10 US states: California (economy-wide), and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, covering the power sector, alongside national EPA standards regulating pollution from the largest industrial emitters.

Greg Hunt's catalogue of falsehoods goes on and on and we could spend all day dissecting them. Suffice to say he wants us to see the hole and never the doughnut.

He urges us to stop wasting our efforts with carefully designed, economically responsible, internationally-linked, pollution cutting schemes and `non-existent' international climate negotiations.

He has the answer: rainforests. A simple plan to protect the great rainforests of the world - "the single biggest, fastest thing the world can do to reduce emissions right now" he says.

And sure enough, it's as simple as the other measures in the Opposition's Direct Action plan to cure climate change. It's right up there with Mr Abbott's plan to carpet all of Australia's productive farmland with trees or the miracle of soil carbon which will enable Australia to magically bury most of its carbon pollution, even though the CSIRO says this technique, if we can get it to work, would reduce less than 1% of our pollution.

When all of these illusions have melted away, and the fear campaign drained of its last drop of political potency, we will finally come face to face with the one, single certainty that Australian voters already sense. For all the denials, for all the hyperbole, for all the muddying of the waters, and if their moment arrives, Mr Hunt and the Opposition will be keeping Labor's price on carbon.

Mark Dreyfus is Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. He's leading the Australian delegation at the UN climate change negotiations in Doha, Qatar.

Objection - to The Cobbora Coal Mine - Submission


Sean Corrigan
2/9 Lae Street
Trinity Beach
QLD 4879




Major Planning Assessments
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney 2001


Dear Sir/Madam,


I strongly Object to the Cobbora Mine going ahead due to the following reasons:


We must protect and preserve the remaining wilderness, biodiversity and natural systems left for their balance, the creature and flora living there and the landscape itself. Also for aboriginal cultural reasons and historic value.


The economic assessment of the project and response to submissions has not adequately addressed the cost of a state-owned coal mine to the taxpayers of NSW.
The project cannot guarantee a `reliable, secure and economically stable domestic coal supply (to) NSW generators' nor can it guarantee `affordable electricity in NSW.'
The justification for the mine is based on contracts negotiated by the ALP Govt as part of the Gentrader deal. These could be filled through other arrangements.
The PPR does not justify the increase in water demand for mining operations from the previous prediction of 3,700 ML per year up to 4,340 ML per year.
The increased pump rate from the Cudgegong River and access to higher natural flows has not been adequately assessed.
The PPR will increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha including an additional 11 ha of threatened ecological communities.
The ecological footprint of the mine is too high and cannot be adequately offset. The PPR does not identify a final offset package because this is not achievable.
The increased height of over burden emplacements by 20m will increase dust emissions. The air quality model needs to be redone using all available meteorological information.
The proposal to implement the draft `Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy' will disadvantage local residents affected by increased noise from the proposed rail loop.
The issue of train length on the Ulan line has not been addressed as identified in the ARTC 2012 - 2020 Rail Corridor Capacity Strategy.
It is a state-owned coal mining project tied to the sale of the power stations. It will lock NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036.


The proposal is to mine 20mtpa (million tonnes per annum) to produce 12mtpa of usable coal - it is extremely poor quality product with high ash content. The project aims to provide cheap domestic coal to power stations in the Upper Hunter and Central Coast. The health impacts of using poor quality coal have not been assessed.


The justification for the project is based on incorrect projections of demand for coal-fired electricity over the next 10 years. Demand has dropped significantly since this project was proposed.


The price of black coal on the export market has also dropped below the projections used to justify the need to source cheaper coal for domestic use.


The mine will cost the NSW taxpayer approx $3.4 billion and will be run at a loss. It is a direct subsidy to power generators in NSW. The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term benefits of renewable energy sources has not been made. Taxpayer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources.


The project has a very large footprint and will cause major environmental impacts on woodland habitat as well as groundwater and surface water sources and loss of at least 79 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.


The clearing of 1,959ha woodland habitat will impact on species listed for national protection: eg Grassy Box Woodland; endangered and vulnerable plants, including 100% loss of the local population of Tylophora linearis, endangered bird species including australasian bittern, malleefowl, regent honeyeater, superb parrot; and vulnerable microbat species - southern long-eared bat, large-eared pied bat.


The mine will need to use up to 4,340 ML (million litres) of water per year from surface water and groundwater interception. The use of high security licenced water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the Mudgee region wine and tourism industries. It could also threaten the long -term security of urban water supply from Windamere Dam.


The cost benefit analysis for the project has not taken into account the social disruption; competition for workforce with other industries, particularly the agricultural industry across western NSW; or the costs of major infrastructure upgrades, particularly rail lines, to accommodate additional coal transport.


Towns and properties along the coal chain will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.


I urge the Government to please NOT ALLOW this mine to proceed and thus place a high protection order of natural landscape to be fully and totally protected from mining, exploration, development, damming, and commercial developments.




Yours sincerely,


Sean Corrigan

we are over the coal use on the planet because it is dirty and destructive...
we are willing to work towards renewable energy targets and love the carbon tax.
th Cobbora coal mine will be responsible for pumping over 29 million tones of CO2 into the atmosphere AND
THEREFORE REDUCING THE ABILITY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR.
GET A BLOODY GRIP AND STOP GIVING THE GO AHEAD TO DEALS
THAT YOU THINK WILL HELP US BALANCE THE BUDGET AND IN THE LONG TERM WILL COST US MORE THAN TRANSFERING TO A CARBON FREE RENEWABLE ENERGY COMMUNITY..
ITS TIME TO CHANGE OVER ..... BE BRAVE DOIT NOW...
audrey hadley from Terrigal....

dear barry and planners


The Cobbora mine proposal is environmentally destructive and fiscally irresponsible.

it will lock NSW for another 35 years plus into CO2 intensive electricity production.

the people of NSW are over 90% for the use of renewable energy and would prefer you spend the $3 billion of taxpayers dollars

on the dedicated introduction of wind power and concentrtded Solar tower technology.
please be aware that Australia will be intellectually isolated in the world,
if we don't accept the reality of climate change and don't act on it imediately.

china is introducing wind power that would supply the entire Aussie demand 3 fold:
give me any reason why australia can't do what spain can do?

dubbo and moree are perfect spots to trail a Aussie CST with storage.
please refer to BZE's Zero Carbon Australia plan


thanks
wolf

4 March 2013

Dear Mr O'Donoghue,

Cobbora Coal Project- Preferred Project Report
Application No: 10_0001
Letter of Objection

I am writing to let you know my extreme disappointment with the newly revised Preferred Project Report (PPR).

Having written to you previously about the inadequate water assessment, I now find that the PPR has increased its water demand for mining operations from 3.7 ML per year up to 4.34 ML. with no apparent justification.

My submission to you dated 16 November 2012 says in part:-

"The Cobborah proposal will also have far-reaching consequences for the groundwater and river systems of the Cudgegong. As the ash content of the coal is high, a high volume of water is required to wash it. 3.7gigalitres of water per year are to be directed to the mine for this purpose. This is the current water use for everything in the Cudgegong Valley at present, whether it is for town water, the wine industry or irrigation for agriculture.

To take this amount of water from the Murray-Darling Basin in the present circumstances is crazy, and downright wrong for Mudgee's tourism and wine industries. The urban water security from Windamere Dam could also be threatened in times of extended drought. Groundwater is not suitable for use as town water as it is so heavy mineralized."

None of these issues have been addressed, let alone the increased pumping required from the Cudgegong, and the effect of taking higher natural flows out of the river.

The endangered ecological Grassy Box Woodland has fared no better under the new PPR. A further 92 ha of woodland would be destroyed, including 11ha of threatened ecological communities.

I note that this mine's coal was contracted to Eraring and Vales Point power stations by the now disgraced Ian McDonald when he was Minister for Mining and Energy. The economics of this coal mine owned by the State Government still have not been adequately assessed. The


gentrader deal and contracts negotiated by the ALP when it was in government could be satisfied through other arrangements.

I really cannot go past my closing statement of 16 November 2012:-

"Given the problems with lowered electricity demand, the reduced coal price,
the emergence of renewable energies as a viable alternative, the social
impacts of mining, the effect on agriculture and our water systems, our
environment, climate change.....This mine must not go ahead."

Yours sincerely

Ms Diane O'Mara
2 Little Belmore St
Gulgong NSW 2852

Re:Cobbora Coal Project - Preferred Project Report
Application No: 10-0001

I strongly oppose this project and support the development of renewable energy. We must turn coal subsidies into renewable energy subsidies and start rapidly reducing our carbon emissions as we are already seeing the effects of climate change on our planet. I support our planet's biodiversity not its destruction.

Your sincerely,
Ryuji Carruthers

Good day,

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. I object to the Cobbora coal mine due to:

The project cannot guarantee a `reliable, secure and economically stable domestic coal supply (to) NSW generators' nor can it guarantee `affordable electricity in NSW.'

The justification for the mine is based on contracts negotiated by the ALP Govt as part of the Gentrader deal. These could be filled through other arrangements.

The PPR does not justify the increase in water demand for mining operations from the previous prediction of 3,700 ML per year up to 4,340 ML per year.

The increased pump rate from the Cudgegong River and access to higher natural flows has not been adequately assessed.

The PPR will increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha including an additional 11 ha of threatened ecological communities.

The ecological footprint of the mine is too high and cannot be adequately offset. The PPR does not identify a final offset package because this is not achievable.

Regards,


Prenaven Naidoo
+61 (0) 404 222 562

Cobbora Coal Project - Preferred Project Report
Application No: 10-0001

I strongly object to this mine.

The Cobbora coal mine, if built, will cost taxpayers more than $3 billion, destroy nearly two thousand hectares of wildlife habitat, and provide half-priced coal to our state's polluting power stations for more than 20 years.

The justification for the mine is based on incorrect projections of demand for coal-fired electricity over the next 10 years. Demand for coal-fired power has dropped significantly since this project was first proposed, as part of the Keneally government's electricity privatisation deal.


Daniel Endicott
106 Robert St, Islington, 49616582
Co-ordinator of BikeLoveCorral.blogspot.com
Community volunteers for a Safe, Non-discriminatory, Happy, Healthy, Sustainable active transport network for cyclists and 3 wheeled mobility electric/assist devices. (and not killing people with cancerous car exhaust fumes)

I strongly object to the Cobbora Coal Mine from going ahead. Why are we as NSW taxpayers subsidizing this coal mine when at the same time the NSW government is scrapping any sort of support for the Renewable Energy Industry. This mine will set Australia back years in our fight to defeat global warming and makes it harder to transition from dirty coal to clean renewable energy. So on behalf of my children I ask you NOT to approve with this terrible project.

Ross Cochrane
162 Brick Wharf Rd
Woy Woy
NSW 2256

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a retired member of society but care deeply at the way the NSW Government is handling the resources of the state in the production of energy.

I am absolutely appalled that the NSW State Government is about to grant permission for the Cobbora Coal development to proceed.
I wish to object on the grounds:

Global Climate Change Risk: 99 percent of scientists believe that human released carbon is having a catastrophic effect on the delicate balance of the world's climate and to ignore this evidence in favour of corporate mis-information is to risk the future of the whole of society.
Using the precautionary principal is a common sense and anyone with a vestige of moral integrity would never agree to this program.
Renewable energy is now so close to "on a par with carbon based energy" in terms of cost, that it makes any decision involving long term investment shaky at best.
The taxpayer subsidies that the fossil industry receives should be cut and charges levied for the toxins released by burning coal, oil and gas and the answer will show that financially renewables are the sensible and moral way to proceed.
Those who suggest that we need base load power have not been looking at the data. Most of Australians live on the east coast where there are lots of hills allowing for hydro storage which can provide an easy and inexpensive battery, filling in the gaps needed by renewable energy sources.
The investment should better be spent on Bio Char production, tree planting, water efficiency technology. Water and food are the new areas of concern. Corporate stupidity is well demonstrated by the over development of the electricity transmission just at the very time when electricity is about to become cheaper when produced locally.
My final point is that the organisation Beyond Zero Emissions have a readymade, fully costed plan for renewable, using proven technology. That is a better way forward

Do not approve this development


Yours sincerely,
John Mobbs

I object strongly to the proposed Cobbora Coal Project on several grounds.

The project will destroy 2,000 hectares of wildlife habitat. Incrementally, piece by piece, natural habitats are destroyed by projects like this. I am not confident that environmental protections will be adequate to protect natural systems, including water, land, plants and animals.
The project will deliver subsidised coal to NSW coal-fired electricity generators. The coal won't be sold at full international market rates, instead NSW taxpayers will subsidise it to the tune of billions of dollars. This is just plain stupid. Why would any sensible government prolong the life of carbon emitting coal generators for even a month or two, never mind years/decades? Especially as demand for electricity is falling and will continue to fall as rooftop solar reaches socket parity and efficiency measures are adopted more widely.

The NSW government has determined that solar incentives should not cost a single dollar to either consumers or the government. I demand that the same criteria be be applied to coal-fired generators so that they pay the full cost of coal for power generation.
I want government policy based on mainstream science. Mainstream science warns that carbon emissions are causing dangerous climate change. We already see the evidence for more extreme weather events in recent record-breaking Australian heatwaves and floods. It is a dereliction of duty for the NSW government to subsidise new coal mines. Instead, coal miners should pay the full cost of the damage their product is causing. A responsible government would ensure that NSW is advancing along the path to emissions-free electricity generation. The Cobbora Coal Mine is a backward step.

I understand that the NSW government is contracturally obliged to supply coal cheaply to coal generators that were sold. I would much prefer that these contracts be reconsidered. It would be better if taxpayer money is spent helping to phase out the coal generators, and to support low-emissions alternatives.

Kind regards
Gillian


--
Gillian King
Ph. 0412 928 302
119 Shirley Road
Roseville, NSW 2069

Please can you consider,

1. NSW needs investment in renewable energy, not coal mines

In its preferred project report Cobbora Holding Company says: "Electricity can be generated by renewable means, such as solar, wind and biomass, but only in relatively small quantities due to the very low energy intensity of these sources. Electricity generation using renewables is not yet able to meet the reliability or cost society demands for electricity and will not be able to in the immediate future."

Contrary to what Cobbora Coal Company argues, transitioning to a secure renewable energy supply is not only possible, it is affordable.

Over $11 billion worth of investment in wind energy alone is ready to go, waiting for the green light from the O'Farrell government. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation set up by the Federal Government has $5 billion set aside for investment in renewable energy projects.

By locking NSW into a coal-fired future, will destroy renewable energy investment opportunities that would attract new capital and jobs into the state.

Now is the time for the O'Farrell government to drop their hostility to renewable energy and work with industry and community groups to increase the renewable energy capacity of NSW.

Increasing renewable energy capacity will make investment in new coal mines like Cobbora unnecessary.

2. Coal is an economic dead-end

The Cobbora coal mine was originally designed to provide cheap coal to state owned electricity generators.

In effect, taxpayers were locked into a deal to provide 5.5 million tonne of coal per annum (mtpa) for 17 years at a heavily subsidised price.

The risks associated with developing and operating the mine are to be borne by the public, while the gentraders who own the right to trade the electricity from the power stations are set to enjoy a locked in, below-market cost coal stream for almost 2 decades.

Forecasts for total state costs and risks associated with developing Cobbora Coal mine have been placed as high as $3.4 billion, while the NSW Treasurer has admitted to a cost impact of at least $1.5 billion.

The project will impose long term economic and environmental costs on NSW and fails to pass the cost-benefit test.

State investment in energy infrastructure should be directed towards encouraging the development of renewable energy projects, not new coal mines to prop up the coal fired electricity industry.

3. Environmental impacts are unacceptable

NSW is the biggest carbon emitter in Australia with power stations that are amongst the most polluting and inefficient in the world.

Proceeding with Cobbora coal mine will provide these power stations with a cheap source of coal for decades to come.

It is estimated that coal burnt from Cobbora will contribute over 29 million tonnes of carbon to NSW's annual carbon footprint.

The environmental, social and economic costs of coal are unacceptable. With the worst impacts of climate change rapidly approaching, the time to transform NSW's energy sector is now.

5. Other issues

The PPR propoposes increasing water demand for mining operations 3,700 ML per year up to 4,340 ML per year. The use of water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the wine and tourism industries in the Mudgee region.
The project will require the clearing of 1,867 ha woodland habitat which will compromise the survival of a large number of endangered animals and vulnerable plants. The PPR will increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha including an additional 11 ha of threatened ecological communities. The ecological footprint of the mine is too high and cannot be adequately offset. The PPR does not identify a final offset package because this is not achievable.
The increased height of over burden emplacements by 20m will increase dust emissions. The air quality model needs to be redone using all available meteorological information.
The proposal to implement the draft `Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy' will disadvantage local residents affected by increased noise from the proposed rail loop.
The issue of train length on the Ulan line has not been addressed as identified in the ARTC 2012 - 2020 Rail Corridor Capacity Strategy.
Thank for reading my points to consider.

If you could respond and let me know how you might approach these points for the future.

Kind regards

Samantha Whittingham

I object most strenuously to this appalling proposal. This state government was most particular that IPART's recommendations for a feed-in tariff for domestic PV would not cost one cent of taxpayer money, yet billions of dollars are to be spent subsidising coal. It makes no sense for the economy, the environment, for jobs, or for supply security:

A supply of coal for 20 years implies some new-build coal-fired stations. Electricity from new-build coal has an LCOE of around $100/MWh, already undercut by wind.
The full cost of coal has major externalities not counted in that price: health, environmental damage, state-funded infrastructure.
There are more jobs in renewable energy than there are in fossil fuel. (If there weren't, it would be a lot cheaper.)

Now that domestic PV is hitting grid parity at peak times, electricity demand is dropping. The first hot summer for some years in NSW produced nothing like the demand that would have been anticipated just a few years ago. There is no urgency for more baseload generation.

Derek Bolton
15 Wharf Rd
Birchgrove 2041
9818 2719

Dear Sir/Madam,


I am a resident of NSW and I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed Cobbora Coal Mine project. I am writing to object to the project for the following reasons:


Locking NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036 is incredibly myopic and harmful to the state and the country. As a developed nation with the capacity and resources to lead the way in renewable energy generation this will hold us back economically, ecologically and socially. If you have not yet read the Beyond Zero Emissions and Stationary Energy Plan that was developed in conjunction with Melbourne University's Energy Research Institute I suggest you find yourself a copy and understand what we are capable of in the area of renewable energy and what investing it could do for the nation.


I believe the economic assessment of the project and response to submissions has not adequately addressed the cost of a state-owned coal mine to the taxpayers of NSW. I've come to understand that the NSW government is contractually obliged to supply the coal at $31/tonne for years to come (based on contracts negotiated by the ALP Government as part of the Gentrader deal) because that was the only way they could sell the coal generators. Failure to comply with this contract will result in compensation being paid from the government. As a tax payer, if any of my money is to be put towards this I'd rather see the money go to closing down the coal generators that would be dependent on the Cobbora mine and paying the compensation for the contract.


Water usage by mining operations is unjustifiable. In this world 97% of water is saltwater. Of the remaining 3% of water that is fresh, 80% of it is frozen. 20% of the world's freshwater is liquid but over 90% of that is polluted or inaccessible. So of the 0.003% of the worlds water we could actually drink and use you want to allow 4340 mega litres of it to be used for mining, which would then pollute it rendering it unusable. That doesn't make sense. If you know there are alternatives (Which there are!) why would you waste that water? Not to mention the flow on effects of using and polluting that water. Here I am with my watersave shower head and my little shower timer trying to conserve water and you are planning on polluting mega litres of it.


There is an endless list of reasons why this project should not go ahead. Listen to reason and scrap this project. I also suggest you pick up a copy of Buckminster Fuller's `Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth' and `Cradle to Cradle' by McDonough and Braungart to understand that our resources will run out if we keep using them faster than nature can replenish them.


Yours Sincerely,

Shalyce Corney

Stop Cobbora Coal Mine!




1. NSW needs investment in renewable energy, not coal mines


Over $11 billion worth of investment in wind energy alone is ready to go, waiting for the green light from the O'Farrell government. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation set up by the Federal Government has $5 billion set aside for investment in renewable energy projects.

By locking NSW into a coal-fired future, will destroy renewable energy investment opportunities that would attract new capital and jobs into the state.




2. Coal is an economic dead-end
The project will impose long term economic and environmental costs on NSW and fails to pass the cost-benefit test.



3. Environmental impacts are unacceptable
It is estimated that coal burnt from Cobbora will contribute over 29 million tonnes of carbon to NSW's annual carbon footprint.

NSW is the biggest carbon emitter in Australia with power stations that are amongst the most polluting and inefficient in the world.







The PPR propoposes increasing water demand for mining operations 3,700 ML per year up to 4,340 ML per year. The use of water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the wine and tourism industries in the Mudgee region.


The project will require the clearing of 1,867 ha woodland habitat which will compromise the survival of a large number of endangered animals and vulnerable plants. The PPR will increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha including an additional 11 ha of threatened ecological communities. The ecological footprint of the mine is too high and cannot be adequately offset. The PPR does not identify a final offset package because this is not achievable.
The increased height of over burden emplacements by 20m will increase dust emissions. The air quality model needs to be redone using all available meteorological information.
The proposal to implement the draft `Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy' will disadvantage local residents affected by increased noise from the proposed rail loop.
The issue of train length on the Ulan line has not been addressed as identified in the ARTC 2012 - 2020 Rail Corridor Capacity Strategy.

1. The demands of climate change mean that coal production must stop as soon as possible.

2. Renewables are fast becoming as economic as fossil fuels.

3. NSW is blessed with plenty of sun and wind and we need to move into the 21st century and develop these energy sources not lag back in the fossil fuel age.

Wind
$11 billion worth of investment in wind energy alone is ready to go, waiting to get the green light from the NSW government.

Concentrated Solar Thermal Power plus Molten Salt Storage (CSP+)
Other much less insolated countries than ours are forging ahead with Concentrated Solar Thermal Power (CSP) which can provide 24/7 energy when combined with molten salt storage. Australia has precisely 2MW of CSP in operation, used as a booster for the Liddell Coal-Fired Power Station. It has another 44MW CSP plant in the pipeline at Kogan but this is also only a booster for the coal-fired power station. It has none in construction. This is a disgrace. The US, Spain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Chile and many other countries either already have quite a lot of CSP in operation, and/or are constructing it or planning it. See http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/by_country.cfm (I do not believe the Lake Cargelligo plant shown in this website is actually operational and this website is not quite up to date. www.csptoday.com shows more projects, however, you need to pay for access to the data.
According to the Beyond Zero Emissions Stationary Energy Plan (downloadable from http://beyondzeroemissions.org/) four large solar regions in NSW in the vicinities of Moree, Bourke, Broken Hill and Dubbo could provide a significant proportion (about 15,000 MW) of our energy requirements.

4. The mine will degrade the environment, both land and air.

5. It will use a large amount of water, threaten the wine industry.

Why are we aiming to be laggards instead of leaders when we have all the benefits any leader could have?

Hey !, youz planning cobbers, Cobbora coalmine is a definite NO-NO.
BURN even MORE COAL ? ! . . . . .
That = environmental vandalism, it is a conscious and deliberate criminal act.
I know that youz know that we need renewable energy and we need it yesterday.
My [and your] child's "quality of life" will depend on it all-too-soon.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ sums it up. Read it.
Then make the decision that does not benefit the few-&-wealthy, but all those two-legged suckers on this lonely planet, who all also have a once-in-a-lifetime go at it.
please

I oppose this coal mine and would like it to be stopped for the following reasons:
- there is a very good chance that the mine could do irreparable damage to the aquifers around Dunedoo.
- the air quality of the surrounding area will be negatively impacted. There is a lot of medical evidence that says how bad open cut mines are for lung health.
- this mine will destroy the native ecology of the area forever. A tree replanting program in 35 years time is simply a token effort.
- As a State and as a nation we should be putting all our efforts into renewable energies. We could then sell China our technology - rather than our finite coal resource. Renewables are the way to go - not dirty coal.

As a resident of the area I object to the Cobbora coal mine on the following grounds.
If built, this mine will cost taxpayers more than $3 billion, destroy nearly two thousand hectares of wildlife habitat and be responsible for hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. It will also lock NSW into coal-fired power generation for at least the next 20 years at a time when other electricity generators in Australia and all over the world are moving towards renewables such as wind, solar (photo voltaic and thermal), tidal and geothermal.
As do all open cut mines, Cobbora will have a very large environmental footprint and have a major environmental impact on the woodland habitat of endangered species. It will also impact on ground and surface water in what is already a dry region of NSW and destroy or damage at least 79 Aboriginal heritage sites.
Clearing nearly 2000 hectares of woodland will destroy a listed Endangered Ecological Community, Grassy Box Woodland; and a wide variety of endangered and vulnerable plants. Ecologists predict that clearing of the woodland would result in the 100 percent loss of the local population of Tylophora linearis, endangered bird species including Australasian bittern, malleefowl, regent honeyeater, superb parrot; and vulnerable micro bat species - southern long-eared bat, large-eared pied bat.
Coal mines use a lot of water that could more sustainably used elsewhere - for agriculture for example. It is estimated Cobbora will need to use over 4,000 megalitres of water per year from surface water and groundwater interception. It proposes to do this by using high security licenced water from the Cudgegong River. . The Preferred Project Report has not adequately assessed the impact of the increased pump rate from the Cudgegong; however, it will almost certainly threaten the water security of the Mudgee region wine and tourism industries. These industries are already under pressure from the wine grape glut, the high Australian dollar and general economic uncertainty which has been exacerbated by NSW State Government funding cuts and restructures. Using this amount of water each year could also threaten the long -term security of Mudgee's urban water supply from Windamere Dam.
The cost benefit analysis for the project has not taken into account the social disruption the mine would cause. There are already three large and one smaller mine in the area and as a resident I'm only too familiar with this aspect of coal mine development which has been disregarded by government for too long. People who were born in Mudgee and have lived there all of their lives are being priced out of the housing market due to competition for housing. Competition for workforce with other industries means that getting tradespeople is next to impossible and all varieties of companies such as mechanics, panel beaters and light industries struggle to keep skilled worker. This impacts on residents in terms of higher prices and general lack of availability as well as on the agricultural industry across western NSW. The costs of major infrastructure upgrades, particularly rail lines, to accommodate additional coal transport has not been factored in. Nor has the loss of amenity in towns and properties along the coal chain which will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.
Not only would this mine be an act of ecological vandalism it would also be economic vandalism. The justification for the mine is based on incorrect projections of demand for coal-fired electricity over the next 10 years. Demand for electricity has dropped significantly since this project was first proposed, as part of the Keneally government's electricity privatisation deal, and as such there is no real need for additional coal supplies. The price of coal has also dropped since then and it would be relatively easy to put a hedging strategy in place to guard against future price spikes.
The mine would also run at a loss due to the high ash content of the coal and the distance the coal would need to be railed. The money would be far better spent on continuing to fund efficiency measures, investing in renewables and providing low/no interest loans to businesses and households willing to invest in reducing their electricity consumption. Government ministers like to deride the Greens and other left-wing parties as Trotskyists yet the vertical integration represented by the development of the Cobbora coal mine would be Stalinist were it not a direct subsidy for recently privatised electricity generators.
Lastly, I would like to raise some specific points of objection to the Preferred Project Report (PPR):
1. The economic assessment of the project and response to submissions does not adequately address the cost of a state-owned coal mine to NSW taxpayers.
2. The project will not achieve its objectives of a `reliable, secure and economically stable domestic coal supply (to) NSW generators' nor can it guarantee `affordable electricity in NSW.'
3. The PPR does not justify the increase in water demand for mining operations from the previous prediction of 3,700 ML per year up to 4,340 ML per year.
4. The PPR will increase the area of destroyed woodland by 92 ha including an additional 11 ha of threatened ecological communities.
5. The ecological footprint of the mine is too high and cannot be adequately offset. The PPR does not identify a final offset package because this is not achievable.
6. Increasing the height of over burden emplacements by 20m will increase dust emissions, however, these calculations have not been redone. The air quality model needs to be redone using all available meteorological information.
7. The proposed `Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy' will disadvantage local residents who will be affected by increased noise from the proposed rail loop.
8. The ARTC 2012 - 2020 Rail Corridor Capacity Strategy identifies issues with train length on the Ulan line. The PPR and the government continues to stick its head in the sand and ignore the problem.

Having read the proposal for the Cobbora coal mine, I am totally opposed to its approval both on environmental and free enterprise ideals.

It is totally irresponsible to be building new coal mines designed to provide coal for the next 20 years.
With our extreme weather events increasing dramatically and the cost for clean-up and rehabilitation soaring, we cannot have a government gambling on the 500-1 chance that this is not human induced global warming.

There are also the negative health impacts of coal mining, and on a personal and economic level this is unacceptable. (It is taxpayer money paying for health also)

The land and water degradation problems with coal mining cannot be overstated.

In the projects own statement its whole reason for being is to supply coal, at well under market value, to electricity generators to continue to provide cheap electricity for NSW.

Surely this is against every edict of free enterprise. This is not new technology that needs some government support to encourage new investment in the state. This is dinosaur technology attracting taxpayer funding to keep all new technology at bay.

From a premier who said that new electricity generation should not cost the taxpayer a single cent this is hypocritical and deceitful.

If coal generators cannot survive with the market value of coal they should be closed down and the taxpayers money put into renewables where the fuel costs will not keep escalating. (there is plenty of coal available at market price)
It makes for a completely uneven playing field for investment in this state.

Jobs in the area could be provided by building a concentrated solar thermal plant that would provide baseload power.