Cobbora Coal Mine

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a resident of Armidale, NSW. I am a concerned citizen. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion.

Key Points of Objection:

Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $3.4 billion of NSW taxpayers' money
The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections
The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts
The project will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value
The project will destroy 1,867ha of significant woodland providing habitat for 39 threatened species, including nationally listed endangered species
The project will destroy significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites
The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions


Background:

Cobbora Coal project is proposed in central west NSW north-west of Mudgee and east of Dubbo.

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 1,867ha 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.

Also a large number of threatened woodland birds protected under the NSW Threatened Species Act were recorded in the area of impact - brown treecreeper, diamond firetail, glossy black-cockatoo, grey-crowned babbler, hooded robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, masked owl, barking owl, powerful owl.

The proposed biodiversity offset package has not been finalized and is inappropriately based on mine rehabilitation. The replacement of high conservation value habitat especially tree hollows in slow growing woodland species takes centuries.

The mine will need to use up to 3,700 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 NSW Government has purchased 68 of 90 properties in the affected area. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Raymond N. Mathiesen

The Cobbora Coal Mine project is obselete, unstainable, polluting and a huge cost to the taxpayer. If it goes ahead it 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.

This project does not make economic sense and is a burden on the taxpayer. Most of all however it subsidises polluting power generation and the opportunity cost will put the State years behind in changing to cleaner alterantives which are most sustainable in the long term.

I object to the project and urge that it be suspended immediately.

Firstly Global Warming has an increasing body of evidence to support not only the reality but that Global Warming is actually accelerating. The cost and destruction of severe weather events is increasing at a fast rate. It is economic folly to exacerbate Global Warming for short term gains by producing subsidized coal from the Cobbora Project just to keep power prices low. The advantage will be lost in insurance premiums if not in productivity. Far better to invest in distributed and renewable power generation.

Secondly the production of coal in both Australia and NSW is quite finite with the Australian Energy Resources Assessment of 2010 listing the life expectancy of Australia's economically viable coal to be only 90 years at pre 2009 production rates. But those production rates are projected by both government and industry bodies to be doubled in the next decade, bringing the complete depletion of economically viable coal to around the middle of this century.

For the above reasons and to stop the destruction of both valuable native and agricultural land I strongly oppose the continuance of the Cobbora Coal Project.

The electorate needs to learn that we are living above our means and need to both pay more and reduce our environmental foot print. Our current lifestyle has been borrowing resources from future generations. If our children and grand children are to have a reasonable life we must change to much more sustainable way we do things.

Failing to decarbonise NSW will have an irreversible and detrimental effect on the future prosperity of this state and on the environment. Looking forward to a future where there is more reliance on fossil fuels will prevent adequate development of the renewable energy sector and the vast numbers of jobs and environmental benefits the renewable energy will be lost. We are lagging behind the rest of the world and other Australian states by allowing the continuation of coal mining to fuel coal-fired power generation. It is essential that we cut emissions drastically and, having decisions to ignore that need and exacerbate existing levels of emissions is irresponsible and undesirable if the government is serious about addressing the problems faced by NSW.

The CVWC strongly objects to the Project on the basis that there is insufficent information relating to the water requirement and the water availability and its efficent delivery. State water correspondence indicates that there will be times when General Security allocations will be undeliverable from Windemere dam after the project begins taking the 2311 GL P/A> important issues like transmission losses , avoiding inappropriate releases resulting in too much or too little water getting to the cudgegong project extraction site. State Water have problems getting it right currently , before another variable is introduced into the equation.
At this time we need mor information relating to the Project and its WATER management , modelled proof backing up this management .
There are questions from state water about the viability and sustainability of water for the project being good enough to allow all stakeholders retaining their full and proper entitlement 365 days of the year.
At this stage I request more time to aquire modelling information, in particular water related models. The new State Water Resource Assessment which will clearly show that previous trigger points ( prior to the 2311GL being included in the Cudgegong ) on the old RA are wrong and will cause a system crash if retained with the inclusion of the Projects water

Objection to Cobbara Coal Project Application NO 10.0001
I live in the region of Mid Western Regional Council. I am very concerned re the above project, which should not proceed.Some of my objections are as below
1..Large amts water extracted from the Cudgegong river, competing with other water usage in the area, We have experienced many periods of severe droughts.
2... This project was based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projection. making it an unfeasable investment of taxpayers money.
3...Aboriginal sites will be destroyed
4...A large amt of woodland would be destroyed which provide habitat for 39 threatened species.
5... Food security is becoming a increasing concern, Australia has a responsability to provide food to third world communities , broadscale food production will be lost.
6...Increase in trains through gulgong, ulan, wollar and bylong, increasing noise and air pollution., health risks.
7 More properties will need to be bought for project to proceed, destroying communities, lifestyle, farm workforce. causing stress and mental health problems to many people.

Submission on the Cobbora Coal Project EA
David Paull MSc Dip Hum
15 November 2012

I do not support the proposed Cobbora Mine for a number of grounds:
1. Does not consider the development of renewable sources of energy to meet the energy needs of the future;
2. Does not take into account the carbon pollution footprint adequately;
3. Will result in significant drawdown of groundwater tables that will have far-reaching consequences to the natural hydrological systems and agricultural systems for an undetermined period of time;
4. Uses questionable science to justify the extent of supposed ecosystem recovery;
5. Does not adequately take into account the adverse health impacts of toxic coal dust emissions on communities and ecosystems.

1. As a government sponsored mining venture, the government has a responsibility to set an example for eh development of renewable sources of energy. The government investment in this project would be better spent developing solar thermal energy sources. The NSW government should look to the examples set overseas in various countries (often using Australian technology) to develop such base power systems. We are well placed to set an example to develop such technologies, the investment by NSW into this project could be better spent developing such systems and support our technological and environmental advantage in developing solar thermal systems.

2. The carbon footprint of this venture will be enormous (30 Mt CO2-e). Not only will it remove large areas of native carbon sinks, but will produce undetermined amounts of carbon pollution throughout the whole process from clearing, excavation, transport of materials, and during the electricity generation process. None of this is explained fully or quantified in the EA document.

As an air quality management has not been provided to demonstrate how pollution levels will be reduced, high levels of particulate matter above acceptable levels are expected, though does not take into account drift from wind.

3. The potential impacts upon the surface and groundwater systems have been under-stated. There are a number of impacts which may have serious long term effects upon the local hydrology and the biological systems that are reliant upon it.
While impacts upon the Talbregar River are stated to be minor, the drawdown in the groundwater in the area of the mine is expected to last 20-50 years, which may have major repercussions for the health of the ecosystems associated with Sandy and Leahys Creeks. . With a drawdown of 1 m expected over an area of over 30 sq km and 20m in the alluviums this may have serious consequences including tree death over a large area, particularly during drought conditions. While surface flows are said to be maintained, these systems are dependent upon both ground and surface water inputs. A degradation of these drainage systems may then adversely affect the Talbregar input. It would only take a few years for the vegetation to be critically affected given adverse water availability.
Why would water quality impacts be restricted to Leahy Creek as stated when flow into the Talbregar is to be expected? This is not clear.
It is intended that water will be used for the mine form the Cudgegong River and that this would not entail any reduction in town and stock water but it is likely to mean a reduction therefore in environmental water.
Both the Talbregar and Cudgegong Rivers already carry high salt loads. The fact that there will be two large hyper-saline lakes in the old pits that will fed into the shallow groundwater aquifers will result in their contamination. Fresh water aquifers which feed the surface ecosystems tend to be shallow. Continual feeding of these aquifers with contaminated water is likely to exacerbate any draw down effects upon the associated biological systems. A water management plan has not been provided so provide some surety for the claims made in the EA.
4. 1,867 ha of native vegetation will be cleared including 70 ha of threatened ecological communities and the local extinction of the local population of the state and federally listed endangered plant Tylophora linearis. Despite expected offsets, this population will disappear, reducing the genetic diversity of this species. There are only eight locations known for this species in the Dubbo region (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/55231-conservation-advice.pdf) .
The EA states that progressive rehabilitation of the pit area with fallen logs will compensate the loss of hollows that will be lost as a result of the excavation of the pits and that this help species to "maintain their territories". This is highly inaccurate representation of the likely direct impacts upon the local fauna. The progressive loss of 1,876 ha of habitat will immediately displace those fauna affected. These animals must immediately disperse to adjacent areas or die in situ. Most adjoining habitat would already be occupied by other fauna and so sever competition would ensue with the outcomes uncertain. There is simply no way an animal would be able to "maintain" its territory over a major habitat loss incident which spans over any number of years. Instead it is almost certain that for th 20 locally occurring threatened fauna species thought to occur in the subject site, local extinction will occur.
The pit rehabilitation will not provide habitat for most of the species it has displaced for many (years in excess of 50). Native vegetation, particularly trees take long periods of time reach maturity and provide hollows in western slope areas where water is scarcer. Nevertheless the successful re-instatement of mature functioning ecosystems has never been demonstrated in other mine closures which is not surprising given such strategies can never replace the previous levels of diversity and function, given issues related to soil type, landform and water availability.
The offset package will protect less than 3,000 of existing woodland with another 1,700 ha of new plantings etc. In other words less than 3,00o ha of existing woodland will be offset in the offset strategy that are unlikely to provide any additional habitat for the threatened species displaced and the rehabilitation proposed will not provide this level of habitat to accommodate over periods in excess of 50 years if ever at all. In addition surveys to test the suitability for providing habitat for displaced threatened species have not been conducted.
Given these factors it is highly unlikely that protecting 2-3 000 ha of existing vegetation will result in a "net improvement " in the extent and quality of locally occurring native vegetation.
5. There is no assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of particulate matter. This is despite growing evidence of the health impacts of mining generated material on human health.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a NSW ratepayer who has studied academically and practically in environmental conservation, and has worked productively in environmental and community organisations for the past 10 years. I am well aware of the need for job creation in regional communities and the benefits that can be gained for conservation efforts through partnerships with the government and private sectors. Through my experience however I firmly believe that further expansion of the coal industry is undesirable, and I have strong objections to the proposed Cobbora coal project.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed coal project.
The main concerns I have with this project include:
The enormous financial cost to taxpayers and continued losses over time, combined with ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions. At a time when all governments are committed to reducing our emissions it adds insult to injury to ask ratepayers to pay for the privelage of locking in increased carbon emissions with no real benefit to the broader community.
Any claims of supporting the local community through jobs are negated by the clear negative impacts on the Mudgee wine region and local water supplies.
Further clearing of native habitat in this region will be catastrophic for the local and broader environment, and proposed remediation measures simply cannot address the initial impacts on habitat and wildlife.
Please reconsider any new coal mining projects in NSW and instead make real commitments to renewable energy projects.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Bell

The Cobbora coal mine will cause untold environmental damage, including the destruction of more than 1,850 hectares of precious woodlands, loss of agricultural land [adding to food security problems in NSW], damage to groundwater resources [as has occurred in e.g. Southern Highlands] and desecration of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

It is clear that there is a growing increase in damaging storms, droughts and bush fires due to extraction of and dependence on coal, oil and gas.

This Cobbora coal mine will lock into place many more years of cost to taxpayers of more than $3 billion, and dependence on polluting and destructive power generation when the money should go towards investing in all forms of renewable energy from sun, wind and waves [the technology of which could be exported] and be used to fund education health care and public transport.

I seriously wonder if you have a proper understanding of the good of the future in mind.
The long-term good for ecologically sustainable industries must be given priority whilst the quick- bucks mentality of projects such as Cobbora coal mine must be stopped now.

Points of Objection:

Cost benefit, and the triple bottom line, are concepts invented to introduce discipline and rigour.
I find them misused and betrayed in this submission, with intent to persuade only.
It is beholden on Planning to see through for example, an assertion that the Cobbora Mine will result in a net increase in biodiversity medium to long term! 24.1.3.
There is currently almost 19 square km of significant woodland, and 39 threatened species, grouped around several creeks and with varied soil types. Any project achieving improvement would need to be of a non invasive nature. A coal mine hardly fits the bill, especially one which makes a coal heap right next to one of the creeks for twenty years.

Its topsoil stockpile is miniscule, indicating to me that the topsoil is fragile and not deep; no way could it be replaceable by a thin veneer over a rock pile.
Some mines in Pilbara crush the overburden finely before replacing it exactly to the previous contour and adding 600mm topsoil; that could be called a good attempt at rehabilitation!
Compare with that, the detail of rehabilitation claimed as part of this project.

Planning should ask for updated figures on cost benefit since the recent steady fall in coal prices. Also updated should be the degree of rehabilitation intended; it would have reduced.
The large green zones on the disturbed land at 21 years are hard enough to believe, but I notice also that the essential element, the creeks, does not even figure in this diagram. How is the rehabilitation to survive the first minor drought?

Bickham's test pit was stated to be for rehabilitation. It hasn't happened, and the solemn promises remain a lever to get future new concessions from Planning, rather than any real intent.
The same could easily happen at Cobbora. What are the Department's instruments to prevent it?

Cost benefit again; the 'intangibles' costed by (what?) 'proven techniques'. $70 million was the conveniently low figure put on those. No matter what intangibles one asks about, it would be easy to say that they have been taken into account by this figure. A read through the historic heritage impacts and the quick description of aboriginal heritage shows us that some things are not to be costed. Take for instance the Lahey's Creek pioneers' cemetery, to be only 40 metres and a 'protective fence' away from a massive overburden dump, forever. Its horizon lost, its peace and ambience destroyed, its historic nature demeaned immeasurably.

Some houses, bought up and useless, are said to be likely to deteriorate and 'require' demolition. What they do require, is maintenance for reuse after or during mine operation.

The horizon shapes may be said to change only subtly. But in the comparitive photomontages, the difference appears fairly crude, the contours altered and mechanical, even if the woodland were in fact to grow back as portrayed.

Another amazing assertion is that greenhouse gas emissions will reduce as a result of the mine; one is expected to believe that its coal will generate less than Victorian brown coal, so this mine will somehow improve the status quo. As if our local power stations run on peat? Pull the other one. I have heard that other data questions the quality of the Cobbora coal, making it less justifiable.

Claims are made regarding social benefits, and the 50% of labour being local. Where does that come from, and is it really so helpful if it were achievable? I come from Scone, where the towns around here are drained of trades, where the mine money is spent elsewhere anyway, and where the shift workers travelling home are always lucky to get home, rarely seeing their families.

The sixteen workers on the current Cobbora area; they too have families who benefit from their current employ. The food and fibre they produce affects more than just them; it feeds many, and generates benefits way outside their own personal economies; but those ripple effects are not taken into account. Ripple effects are only talked about in terms of positives from coal mining; whether true or not.

Agriculture should be equal on the table. Cost beneficially it has to come out on top, because
* *it goes on in perpetuity
* * it need not poison or sterilize land
* * it boosts rather than reducing health,
* *it is essential for human and animal life; 'can't eat coal' is not a mere slogan
* * it is compatible with renewable energy generation of the future
* * it does not take investment away from the development of renewables
* * it recycles natural water
* * it can be managed compatibly with existing biodiversity
* * is subsidised far less by the public purse than coal mining

Also equal on the table should be the entire environmental effect long term, and cumulatively:

We cannot make more arable land, and coalmines waste the land we have.

We have a changing climate, and every new coalmine will hasten its negative effects.

Australia needs every drop of water for the survival of life; coalmines take water and poison it.
The Cudgegong Rivier is a direct human and animal water supply, it is not to wash coal.

Offsets are an attempted sleight of hand; they create and link nothing; they are labels only. They deal in fear and threats: "If I take this, I promise to protect this remote thing which otherwise will go too. So give me what I want." They assume an evil future for all habitat, and attempt coercion.

If in Cobbora, nearly 2000 hectares of habitat is lost from the grassy woodlands, a threshold may be crossed beyond which the Australasian Bittern for example, will simply disappear from the area.

Siding Spring observatory is a unique and immensely valuable enterprise. No coalmining should ever be allowed to interfere with it, regarding light spill. The concern is that Cobbora may however careful itself, be a precedent for mines even closer to Siding Spring.


This submission can only touch on what is a large set of documents.
I ask the Department of Planning to refuse this Application for Cobbora Coal Mine.

Yours sincerely,

Bev Atkinson B.Arch

This will be a very short submission of objection concerning the Cobbra Coal project since the time allowed was short:

Many people in NSW have been very concerned about the growing approvals for coal projects, despite the fact that coal mines have disastrous effects in a dry country like Australia, despite the loss of valuable farming land and water, despite the changing conditions operating in the 21st. century ,despite well researched data on the anthropogenic cause of climate change and global warming ;despite the extensive damage to Australia's natural assets,a situation whereby 'assessments' seem to change nothing since this growth still happens without proper controls, without a proper duty of care by the govt. ministers responsible for planning and primary industries.
All this also despite vast numbers of submissions, both lay and scientific, (which on the whole been almost totally disregarded), regarding the dangers involved with Australia's dependance on a dangerous fossil fuel and the damage this is doing at every level- social and environmental.
After years of concern about the serious corruption connected to the previous government and its relation to a financially rewarding asset-coal- it is obvious that the lack of proper government control, and a malaise in the current legislative and juridical procedures still allows for ill-advised approvals. Unless a more complex and informed approach is taken the future looks bleak.

How can the government justify destroying thousands of hectares of wildlife habitat to open yet another huge scar of a coal mine.
What is even more disturbing is that the mine will be heavily subsidised by tax payers.
The NSW government has withdrawn from subsidising clean renewable energy, how can it turn around and subsidise 19th century technology.
I absolutely oppose putting the health of local people at risk and spending taxpayer money on propping up this industry.
Funds get withdrawn from health and education and poured into this dirty industry that is not good for health of local communities or the whole planet.
We need politicians who look forward not backward.

I object to this development on the following grounds.

Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $3.4b of NSW taxpayers money that will subsidise coal-fired power generators. It will lock NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036.This is locking in climate failure as the project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts.

The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections as we have seen a real decline in electricity usage and we know there are other ways to meet peak demand on the few days per year it si required such as making all air conditioners turn off for 6 minutes per hour. This will not affect the ambient temperature but provide a real cut in peak demand for electricity.

The project will provide poor quality coal to Upper Hunter and Central Coast power stations. The health impacts of using poor quality coal have not been assessed.

The project proposes to increase train movements through Newcastle by 8 additional trains per day increasing traffic hold ups at Adamstown and Clyde St gates by 40 minutes. Towns and properties along the coal chain will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.

Some export coal is also expected to go through the port. This could expand significantly.

The open cut coal mine project will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value and significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. It will cause major environmental impacts on woodland habitat as well as groundwater and surface water sources and loss of 79 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

The clearing of 1,867ha woodland habitat will impact on species listed for national protection, including, but not limited to, 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 such as southern long-eared bat and the large-eared pied bat.

A large number of threatened woodland birds protected under the NSW Threatened Species Act were recorded in the area of impact, these include the brown treecreeper, diamond firetail, glossy black-cockatoo, grey-crowned babbler, hooded robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, masked owl, barking owl and powerful owl. Has the cumulative effect of all the mining leases been considered or do we continue to act as if this will not have an effect?

As this project is being determined under the old and much maligned part 3A and is a state-owned coal mining project tied to the sale of the power stations which your government has just announced is going ahead, so wouldn't it be appropriate to allow the 'private providers' to source their own coal at the most competitive price on the market rather than gift them this poor quality coal for we, the residents of NSW to endure for another generation. Surely this would return more royalties to the government. The mine will cost the NSW tax payer approx $3.4b and will be run at a loss. It is a direct subsidy to power generators in NSW. The Central Coast has endured enough over the last 50 years from coal fired electricity power stations. Let someone else have the pollution, heavy metal residue, ash dams, heated lake water and unknown health impacts from coal dust spent fuel.

Where is the comparison to renewable energy sources over the next 24 years? How can the state government go down this path without this work being done particularly in light of the carbon price.

As the mine will need to use up to 3,700 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. The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions. It could also threaten the long -term security of urban water supply from Windamere Dam.

The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

This mine should not go ahead under any circumstances.

Yours truly.

Sue Wynn

I object to the Cobbora Coal my objection are below

Key Points of Objection:

1. Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $1.5b of NSW taxpayers money
2. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections
3. The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions, approx 25m tonnes per year, conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts

4. The project will use over 3,000ML of high security water from the Cudgegong River and compete with the general security licence holders including the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions

5. Up to 10 coal trains a day will pass through Gulgong to Ulan, Wollar, Bylong and additional export product could be sent through Mudgee in the future.

6. The NSW Government has purchased 68 of 90 properties in the affected area. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

7. The large open cut mine will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value

8. The project will destroy 1,867ha of significant woodland providing habitat for 39 threatened species, including nationally listed endangered species

9. The project will destroy significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites
Background:

Cobbora Coal project is proposed in central west NSW north-west of Mudgee and Gulgong.

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 over 21 years - 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 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 tax payer approx $1.5b 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. Tax payer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources.

The mine will need to use up to 3,700 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.

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

The open cut coal mine 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 1,867ha 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

Also a large number of threatened woodland birds protected under the NSW Threatened Species Act were recorded in the area of impact - brown treecreeper, diamond firetail, glossy black-cockatoo, grey-crowned babbler, hooded robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, masked owl, barking owl, powerful owl.

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.

Dear Steve;

There are a range of concerns with regard to this mine and many other coal mines in the state.

The cumulative impacts to our climate due to greenhouse gas emissions, the negative impacts to our economy due to the crowding out of the local economy and the local impacts to our environment appear to be concerns common to each new region being opened up to coal mining in this state.

In this case there is no need to mine such poor quality coal and the best use for this material is to remain in the ground.

In addition, there are better things to do with $3.4 billion as the need for extra energy generation is tailing off as the price rises and renewables become more affordable.

The premise of this mine is plain silly so please do us all a favour and knock this projects on the head to give us some faith that the system works.

Rgds

Phil

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to submit my opposition to this project for these main reasons:

* At a time when governments, including our own, are making commitments to reduce their coal pollution, I cannot comprehend how this State Government is proposing to sink $3.4 billion of our taxpayer money to subsidise this archaic resource.
* The money would be better spent invested in leading edge renewable technology - a source of jobs, income and a way to secure our competitive standing in the global clean energy market.
* The project threatens the biodiversity of an area of 1,867 ha, including endangered species.

I hope you will consider my objection and work to ensure our State invests in progressive projects - not those of a protectionist, short-sighted and destructive nature.

Kind regards,
Laila Bazzi

Key Points of Objection:
1. Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $1.5b of NSW taxpayers money
2. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections
3. The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions, approx 25m tonnes per year, conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts

4. The project will use over 3,000ML of high security water from the Cudgegong River and compete with the general security licence holders including the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions

5. Up to 10 coal trains a day will pass through Gulgong to Ulan, Wollar, Bylong and additional export product could be sent through Mudgee in the future.

6. The NSW Government has purchased 68 of 90 properties in the affected area. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

7. The large open cut mine will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value

8. The project will destroy 1,867ha of significant woodland providing habitat for 39 threatened species, including nationally listed endangered species

9. The project will destroy significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites
Background:
Cobbora Coal project is proposed in central west NSW north-west of Mudgee and Gulgong.
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 over 21 years - 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 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 tax payer approx $1.5b 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. Tax payer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources.

The mine will need to use up to 3,700 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.

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

The open cut coal mine 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 1,867ha 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

Also a large number of threatened woodland birds protected under the NSW Threatened Species Act were recorded in the area of impact - brown treecreeper, diamond firetail, glossy black-cockatoo, grey-crowned babbler, hooded robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, masked owl, barking owl, powerful owl.

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.

To whom it may concern,
I write in profound shock that there is a plan to open this new coal mine, given that it will cost $3billion.
I would seem that the proponents have not heard of Climate Change, or do not consider it real.
At a time when there is a clear need to curb carbon emissions it seems that it is more than obvious that money should be invested in alternative, non-polluting energy sources.
Such an alternative ought to be seen as a long term investment. We are now witnessing the costly and damaging impact of Climate Change, the floods, the droughts and the fires. We have to think of the future generations, and not simply of an immediate need, one to be satisfied as economically as possible.

I wish to lodge an objection to the Cobbora Coal Project as I don't believe the government should be investing in a new large coal project at this time. Globally we need to be reducing greenhouse gases and thus coal mining isn't an appropriate activity. The government ought to be investing in clean renewable energy sources - demand and price for coal is already going down and we will be locked into a power generation system that is becoming superseded. This coal project will be a drain on government funds while at the same time putting our groundwater reserves at risk. It's short-sighted to continue investing in this Cobbora Coal Project and the government should pull out now.

Dear Sir/Madam,

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.

It will also have an impact on the health of people living in the area. Which can be observed in the Hunter Region.

Planning should be for the future not for the dyeing industries. These funds would be better used for renewable energy following the world trends, especially China that is investing $473.1 billion on clean energy investments in the next five years. How does this position Australia for the future?

Planning should be for our children future. What economy is this project going to leave them with - a XX century dinosaur.

I am appealing to you to look at the future, legacy you want to leave behind -is it polluted air, water, land and health issue for the people; destroyed environment that all life depends on,;or a country that can compete with it neighbours on new technologies.

For me the choice is easy NO New Mines.