Glendell Continued Operations Project

GLENDELL CONTINUED OPERATIONS PROJECT in the Hunter Region
The Glendell Mine Continuation Project is a huge opportunity for the regional communities of the Hunter Region where the investment and jobs that will be generated by this project are desperately needed.
More than 23,000 coalminers in NSW rely on coalmining for their livelihood. There are more than 7,000 local businesses across NSW that are supported by mining.
Coal mining is important to me and my family, our community and NSW.
Coal is NSW's most valuable export commodity, with a value of more than $20 billion.
We urgently need the Glendell Mine Continuation Project to be approved to secure jobs and investment for local communities.
The Glendell Mine Continuation Project has the support of the local community, local MPs, local Council and local businesses.
The project will provide 350 jobs during construction and permanent full-time employment for 690 people during the project’s operation across the extended mine life.
The federal government’s tables of multiplier effects shows that more than three times as many indirect jobs are created for every person directly employed in a coal mine.
Coal is Australia’s most valuable export.
The state of NSW will benefit from $296 million in royalties by approval for this project. This is money that NSW will be able to spend on our hospitals, schools and roads.
Our national, state and local economies relies heavily on coal mining so coal mining benefits all Australians.

Coal from Australian coal mines has ideal qualities and it has fewer impurities, such as sulphur, than coal from other countries such as Asian countries. So the use of Australian coal is reducing pollution, such as sulphur dioxide, on a worldwide basis.

NSW needs to focus on the positive aspects of coal mining and its many benefits so as to not be distracted by ideologically driven anti-mining activists.
We should all be proud of what coal mining is doing and can do in future for Australia, NSW and the Hunter Region.
The reports submitted for the Glendell Mine Continuation Project demonstrates its comprehensive coverage of all environmental issues. The benefits from the commencement of this coal mine are immense.

For all of these reasons I fully support the Glendell Mine Continuation Project.

There is very strong support around Hunter Valley Wine Country for a proposal to move Ravensworth Homestead to the town of Broke. I support this vision. I believe it has a lot of merit and would be a win for the coal industry, for tourism, for the township of Broke and for the heritage of the Hunter Valley.
I have lived in The Hunter for 20 years and I have seen community sentiment for the coal industry slowly change from being supportive to something akin to resentment. Everyone knows of plenty of families relying on the mines for their livelihood. But we have poor air quality from coaldust that authorities seem reticent to acknowledge, we have towns and their history wiped out, we have vast holes in the ground never to be reinstated to anything productive, we have people who many years ago retired to The Hunter for a quiet life and their lives are changed as mines encroach and they can't get a good night's sleep because of the uncertainty. We have an understandable perception that governments are doing everything to change the rules to allow mining companies to expand at their whim. With all this and the fact that internationally, coal for energy is on the nose, locals are starting to be less tolerant of all the negatives.
So the relocation of Ravensworth Homestead to Broke would be a significant gesture that would serve to help the cause.
The Hunter wine industry has copped a hiding this year with drought and fires, and the Broke Fordwich region has been at the epicentre. The publicity around the fires, smoke and the loss of the 2020 vintage has been devastating for the wine industry and tourism in the Singleton and Cessnock LGAs. The relocation of the Ravensworth Homestead would provide a wonderful lift for Broke/Fordwich and their township. It would become a town centrepiece. So many houses of significant heritage value have been destroyed or isolated by mines and have fallen into disrepair. There have been attempts in the past to relocate some of these historically significant buildings, but the coal industry and governments haven’t had the will or the vision to save them. I see this as a great opportunity for government, industry and the community to get together and save part of our heritage.
I commend the relocation of Ravensworth Homestead as a community supported project that will attract a lot of positive attention and goodwill.

I support Glendell continuation project

I support Glendel continuation project

Hi I'm Brendan I work in the mining industry and fully support the Glendell Project .

Please refer to attached letter of support.

This project is of important economic importance to the local community. Glencore provides a great deal of funding and support to the local community. Glencore has saved the local coal industry, and is providing excellent economic and career opportunities to locals.

The following submission is made on behalf of the Plains Clan Wonnarua People (PCWP, the registered Aboriginal land claim applicant for this section of the Hunter Valley), in response to Application Number SSD-9349 for the Glendell Continued Operations mine extension.
The PCWP would like it to be known that Appendix 22 has been submitted without the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010 having been completed. The consultation with the PCWP is still in progress. The PCWP therefore do not consider the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report in support of the application as complete. Specifically section 4.3 Stage 3 – Gathering information about cultural significance including:
4.3.3 As part of this consultation, the proponent must also seek cultural information from registered Aboriginal parties to identify:
(a) whether there are any Aboriginal objects of cultural value to Aboriginal people in the area of the proposed project
(b) whether there are any places of cultural value to Aboriginal people in the area of the proposed project (whether they are Aboriginal places declared under s.84 of the NPW Act or not). This will include places of social, spiritual and cultural value, historic places with cultural significance, and potential places/areas of historic, social, spiritual and/or cultural significance.
4.3.4 Some information obtained from registered Aboriginal parties may be sensitive or have restricted public access. The proponent must, in consultation with registered Aboriginal parties, develop and implement appropriate protocols for sourcing and holding cultural information. In some cases the sensitive information may be provided to the proponent by an individual and the proponent should not share that information with all registered Aboriginal parties or others without the express permission of the individual.
4.3.5 Information obtained in 4.3.4 is used to understand the context and values of Aboriginal object(s) and/or place(s) located on the proposed project site. This information must be integrated with the scientific (archaeological) assessment of significance. Together the context, values, and scientific assessment provide the basis for assessing Aboriginal heritage values and recommending management options.

The applicant has been in discussion with the PCWP for the provision of the inputs to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage study and agreed to the PCWP provision of the inputs. The PCWP have requested to visit the land to undertake anthropological research activity in order to be able to provide the inputs required by the consultation process however these arrangements for the site visit have been deferred by the applicant on a number of occasions. Whilst there is still agreement to provide this information, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report has been submitted without the outcomes of the consultation with the PCWP. The consultation outcomes are intended to inform the assessment of significance, Aboriginal heritage values, and the recommendations of the management options as required by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010. Therefore the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report submitted as part of this application is incomplete and is not compliant with the consultation requirements.
The PCWP has specific concerns relating to the significance of conflict sites from the early colonial period not being adequately represented in the study. Additionally aspects of the cultural landscape that are significant to the PCWP have not been considered and represented in the study together with the archaeology of the Glendell Continued Operations Area. The PCWP cannot support the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report in its present form until the consultation inputs and cultural values of the PCWP are included and used to inform the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment as required by the legislation.

(See also addendum)

-This project is not consistent with NSW's climate change policy, the principle of inter-generational equitynor the public interest, as it clearly assumes failure to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goals and worsening climate change impacts for New South Wales;
-This project further extends mining in a heavily mined area, exacerbating air pollution and water loss;
-The Glendell Continuation Project will result in 230.8 million tonnes of greenhouses gases over he life of the project. This is in addition to the greenhouse pollution from the rest of the Mount Owen complex;
-Air quality monitoring is inadequate to meet the needs of the community and in light of the latest information from World Health Organisation and local Hunter Valley Medical professionals, health effects are increasing across the Hunter Valley.
I strongly object to the Glendell Continuation Project.

Yours sincerely
Margaret Edwards
277 Newcastle St
East Maitland 2323

I am a 30 year old male from Singleton. Myself, along with most of my friends and family were born and raised right here in Singleton.
Each one of my family and friends either work in the mining community or work within the Singleton and Hunter Valley communities. We along with everyone else in our region, wether they be builders, school teachers, retail assistants, coal miners or doctors, rely on the future of mining.
We have all built a career and setup a life right here in this great region. Not having coal in our future plans means we can't secure a future in our home town for our young families and everything we have all worked so hard for will be lost.
I believe we are an integral part of the Australian economy and not having our coal exports will effect not only us here in the Hunter Valley but everyone else in this great country.
So I believe coal is still very much a very important part of our future!

I support this project.

Like where i work this mine provides countless jobs not only for permanent employees but also contract labour.
This provides the surrounding area with people who need to buy groceries, clothes and the like putting money back into the community.
This along with donations, grants, volunteers for community projects in my mind is only positive.

This mine does so much positively for the local community through grants, funding for schools, sporting sponsorships and programs throughout Singleton and the Greater Hunter. As well as this it is a fantastic employer to so many families in this region. A loss of jobs would detriment the community greatly.

See attached file

It is not in the public interest to allow the approval of this project for the following reasons:
- carbon pollution cause by the burning of the coal from the mine; and
- disruption of ground water table.
Thank you for your consideration.
Clint Seares

I think this will be good for everyone, workers,family, royalties for NSW, The region, Singleton town, community.

Climate Change Australia Hastings (CCA) in a community climate action group, based in Port Macquarie, NSW and works at the community level to address climate change issues at the local, state and national level. CCA objects to the Glendell Continuation Project.
The review of this one project must not be carried out in isolation - as if it were the only coal mine - but in the context of the industry as a whole and the known consequences. Coal is extracted only for one purpose - to burn it. And the consequences of burning coal are well documented. The Glendell Continuation Project will result in an additional 230.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over the life of the project - and this is in addition to the greenhouse pollution from the rest of the Mount Owen complex. Approval to the continuation of this mine is approval for the increase in pollution, including global greenhouse gas emissions. You cannot have one without the other.

We object to this project on its own lack of merit, but more importantly, we object to it because it is fundamentally at odds with protecting Australians from the impacts of climate change. It undermines other industries such as tourism and agriculture and relies heavily on substantial government subsidies. It impedes the development of alternative renewable energy options, its core product - coal - is harmful to human health costing Australian taxpayers an estimated $2.6 billion every year. It is a risky financial investment — banks, insurance companies, institutional investors, etc are either not supporting or actively disengaging from fossil fuel projects. For details of these comments, see the Climate Council Report “Risky Business: Health, Climate and Economic Risks of the Carmichael Mine”.

Even as this submission is being written, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has drawn attention to the global capital flight from thermal coal including Black Rock and Aegon. https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-capital-flight-from-thermal-coal-is-accelerating It points out that “As one of the three largest fossil fuel export nations globally, Australia’s economy is exceptionally exposed. Australia can continue “investing” in yet more coal and liquefied natural gas capacity and can build more and more stranded assets (along with the harm to regional communities involved)."

The proponent asserts that the project will benefit the local community with jobs and local expenditure as well as contribute significantly to the State and National finances. This may or may not be true in the short term, but in the longer term, the financial and social consequences of burning the extracted coal are well known - see reports of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, etc. The local communities who will supposedly benefit from this project will be adversely affected by the disastrous impacts of climate change such as the extreme droughts and bushfires we are all enduring. The local community would benefit far more from a planned transition from the existing Glendell coal mine to the industries of the future such as the renewable energy industry, that would provide a far greater number of safe and sustainable jobs.

The Climate Council in its report “Ageing and Unprepared: Energy in New South Wales” found that NSW was once a world leader on climate action but over the past five years it has become a laggard. It found that NSW is responsible for greater greenhouse gas pollution than any other state or territory and continues to rely heavily on polluting coal and unreliable gas power stations. It also found that although local councils are beginning to step up in the face of state government inaction, current climate policies in NSW are inadequate and the state is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change.”

On 25 October 2019 the New South Wales Government introduced the draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Territorial Limits) Bill 2019. This proposed amendment aims to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian coal burned overseas. The Environmental Defenders Office CEO David Morris responded that because we are part of one climate system, burning NSW coal overseas impacts communities here at home. He continued that it defies logic that in a time of severe drought and bushfires, a (government) claiming to be for and from the bush would legislate against consideration of climate impacts from Australian coal on our communities.

This proposed legislation is currently under review by a Parliamentary Committee and accordingly, the existing legislation is in force.

We conclude that the proposed extension of the Glendell project is financially, socially and environmentally unacceptable. We do not accept that the project is consistent with NSW’s climate change policy, the principle of intergenerational equity, nor the public interest. By proposing to burn more coal, significantly adding to greenhouse gas emissions, it clearly fails to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goals and worsens climate change impacts for the local community and for the people of New South Wales and Australia.

I would like to lodge my support for the Glendell Continued Operations Project SSD-9349

The Glendell Continued Operations Project is situated in area where coal mining contributes directly to local and State communities & businesses. The brownfields project is an extension of existing operations in place over the past 10 years, considering this the project will have minimal impact on the environment within the Hunter Valley area

Glendell Continued Operations approval will continue employment for existing staff, contractors to a peak of approximately 690 and provide ongoing business to local suppliers, the construction of the new Mine Infrastructure Area will see approximately 350 construction jobs.

The expansion will see continued use of existing Mt Owen Complex Infrastructure to process and send the coal to the port. The export income generated by the project will assist in the state of NSW through royalty revenue and the national interest by contributing positively to employment and Australia's balance of trade.

The environmental assessment has more then adequately addressed the needs of the community, the Glendell Continued Operations Project deserves the support of the NSW government in order to continue providing a benefit to the state and continued support and employment to existing and future staff for years to come

Regards.

Callan Sheldon

I wish to object to the Glendell Continuing Operations project which is seeking to extend an existing operation to extract an additional 135million tons of coal and extend operations until 2044. The objections are made on the following grounds:
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 4.15
(1) Matters for consideration--general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application--
(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,
(e) the public interest.
Air Quality:
Jacobs in preparing the report for Glendall included the following disclaimer: "In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by the Client and/or from other sources." The report uses 2014 as a benchmark for air quality - because this suits the client . In subsequent years they note that air quality had deteriorated due to bushfires. At a time when many Australians are experiencing for the first time the impact on their own health of poor air quality - we need to pay much closer scrutiny to any development that will further compromise air quality in the region.
Water Quality:
The EIS report admits that this project will negatively "impact further on the quality of groundwater over the life of the Project" and that "these impacts are complex and vary both spatially and temporally." The fact that historically mining in the area has had a negative impact on water quality should not be used to justify further damage to groundwater systems. At a time when Australia and its food sources have been significantly affected by drought - a project which may (and the likelihood is admitted) compromise any water source should not be permitted.
Social and Economic Impacts:
The EIS is underpinned by assumptions which should not be given much weight. For example the report suggests that it will benefit the local community by providing jobs and creating a revenue stream for the State government. However, the assumption is that the global market for coal will continue to be buoyant and prices will be steady or improve. Both assumptions are not well supported by trends and actions by importers and investors - both have already commenced a withdrawal from extractive fuel industries . The revenue streams do not account for the cost of negative externalities - land degradation, downstream emissions, pollution, deteriorating air and water quality and their impact on public health. The cost of these externalities produced by an expansion of the Glendall project are not taken into account in determining the overall benefit of approving the expansion. Again the EIS is subject to a broad disclaimer and Umwelt suggests that no third party should rely on the contents of the report.
Public interest:
The expansion will extend the project to 2044. This extension conflicts with the Australian Government's undertakings under the Paris Accord. The continued contribution of downstream emissions should be taken into account (as in the Rocky Hill case) and the inter-generational equity issue should be given the weight that is deserved so that young Australians can be guaranteed a future where air, water and land resources have not been further degraded but rather have been actively restored.

I support the mines continued operations. The mine is a credit to the community with the work it does through grants and funding for not only our schools but also the wider community. I feel as though the loss of jobs from not continuing would have a major effect on the community in an economy and climate that is already struggling. The positive the mine and industry does in our community greatly outweighs the negative and therefore I believe it should continue.

I object to the Glendell Continued Operations Project on the following grounds.

All of the direct and indirect GHG emissions from this coal mine will impact on the environment. All anthropogenic GHG emissions, regardless of their size contribute to the global total of GHG emissions. All anthropogenic GHG emissions contribute to climate change and are thus having a catastrophic environmental, social and financial impact across the region, the state and indeed globally.

The loss of life, property, habitat and species incurred in the current and ongoing fires burning across Australia are indisputable evidence of the massive financial and environmental losses that will continue to occur as a direct result of climate change. In NSW alone economists are projecting an estimated loss of $3,500 million due to the 2019/2020 fire season. Such economic impacts of Climate Change will continue to be felt year on year as natural disaster frequency and intensity increase as the planet continues to warm as a direct result of increasing GHG emissions.

The Economic Impact Assessment EIS App 30 provided by the proponent was completed prior to the catastrophic 2020 bushfire season and in the words of the authors “… does not take account of events or circumstances arising after 29 October 2019 ...” The ongoing impacts of climate change on the entire nation will have significant and long-lasting financial implications for the entire economy and cannot afford to be ignored in the assessment of this proposal.

In order to reduce the long-term environmental impacts of climate change it is essential that we limit GHG emissions from all sources.

As per the proponents EIS App 29 Observations on Climate Change “…in the absence of any government policy or legal principle that dictates the extent to which GHG emissions generated by either the Project or the combustion of the Project's coal by other developments, must be considered and weighted in the determination of a development application under the EP&A Act, it is for the consent authority to determine how much weight it is to accord to the climate change impacts and GHG emissions generated by the Project or the combustion of the Project's coal by other developments …”

The consent authority must recognise that the long term ongoing financial and environmental losses that will result from Climate Change must be taken into account and that these far outweigh any short term economic benefits to the region.