Mt Thorley Coal Mine Continuation

Submission for Rio Tinto Mt Thorley Continuation Project

Application No. SSD 6465



Please find below my submission to the abovementioned application. My name is Belinda Upward, I have been a resident of Bulga for 6 years and I oppose the application.

In 2013 the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of a previous application made by Rio Tinto. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must also be refused.

Rio Tinto is requesting approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". What Rio Tinto aren't stating is that they signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge, that it would not apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge area mined and that it would protect the village of Bulga. Rio Tinto Australia's website says that "Good community relations are as necessary for our business success as the effective management of our operations." Rio Tinto state time after time that they are community minded and care about the communities, however it seems this only happens if they make the quota of however many millions of money they need to make per year.

Rio Tinto also made this DA Application WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION with the people of Bulga. Rio Tinto met with community representatives 3 weeks before at the Community Consultative Committee, no advice was given on this proposed application even though it was well under way and ready to submit. The people that call Bulga home are going to be most impacted by this or any other expansion and yet Rio Tinto don't have the decency to hold a meeting to advise the people in the village on what's happening. What they did do is drop a fancy pamphlet in the mail notifying us of their application. Environmental Impact Statements that are required when making an application and the abovementioned pamphlets just don't get typed and printed over night, they take a couple of months to get produced and printed which proves they knew about the application when they met with the Community Consultative Committee. Rio Tinto only care about profit and not people.




Saddle Ridge
Saddle Ridge is a vital barrier between the Bulga village and the noise and dust of Warkworth Mine. In 2003 Rio Tinto signed a Deed of Agreement with the Government agreeing they would preserve this area and would never be mined.

Ecology
The Environmental Assessment Rio Tinto provided to support their application is appalling and full of lies. This extension will destroy an Endangered Ecological Community containing Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box forest vegetation.

The offset Rio Tinto propose is not `like for like' and should not be suggested. Saddle Ridge needs to be preserved in its own right.

Noise
Residents of Bulga are constantly complaining about noise coming from the Warkworth mine and Rio Tinto have been fined for exceeding noise limits. Last year alone, the mine received 800 noise complaints. No increase in noise levels is acceptable and more tight actions must be taken to lower existing noise levels from the Warkworth Mine. It is clear the mine cannot currently control the effects of noise so what hope have we got if they move closer? In the Environmental Impact Study submitted by the mine in support of their application, they have carefully selected noise data from one monitor that shows relative compliance and not data from other monitors that show constant excessive levels.

Air Quality
As a mother of two children under 5, air quality is very important to me. Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents living in areas around open cut mines. Warkworth Mine has been fined for excessive dust and this will only get worse if the application is approved.

Jobs
Government must weigh up the benefit of jobs versus the cost to the community. People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without the constant noise, dust and visual impacts of mining.

Rio Tinto went on a big recruitment drive at their Warkworth Mine so they would have the man force ready to work when they got the approval they were expecting to extend their mine. So now for them to claim that they need this approval "to maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels" is upsetting. This is a scare tactic being used by Rio Tinto to their employees and also using it as a sympathy tactic for other people to feel sorry for their employees and support the expansion. This reason must not be the basis of mining into an agreed non-disturbance area.

Mines may provide jobs but if this is at the expense of the community's health associated with living near an open cut mine, then it is too big a price to pay.

All mines in the Hunter Valley have an end date, it comes part in parcel of working in the mines. The current end date for Warkworth mine is 2021, that is 8 years from now and gives employees plenty of time to find future employment.

It should also be stated that we have asked Rio Tinto to mine underground which they constantly refuse. The reason for this refusal is they won't make as much profit as they would if they open cut mined. Are they really looking out for their employees?

Visual Impact
The overburden removal and the ever increasing overburden dumps will be evident to the residents of Bulga who live on the more elevated properties. Further, the massive excavation into the eastern side of Saddle Ridge will have a major visual impact when viewing the Ridge from the east. The reinstatement and rehabilitation of the devastated Saddle Ridge will be impossible.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
The Aboriginal Cultural heritage in the expansion area must not be destroyed. Four out of seven artefacts remain from those identified in the earlier EA. With this expansion the remaining four will be destroyed. These artefacts were intending for preservation under the Deed of Agreement of 2003. This will not be honoured under this expansion.

Economic
No economic assessments in support of the project have been provided nor is their any evidence available to justify the statements of Rio Tinto that they must expand the mine to maintain its viability and jobs.

I believe Rio Tinto are now using a `bit by bit' approach which could continue for numerous years. Should the mine get approval for this application then the same argument will again be used by Rio Tinto in two years time to justify another expansion into Saddle Ridge and move closer to the village of Bulga. This will continue until they have mined the whole area that was rejected by the Land and Environment Court earlier this year.

I am asking you to take on board my submission and all submissions made by the residents of Bulga. This is our home and our community which we have worked hard to build and very proud of. Towns and communities like Bulga are becoming scarcer and scarcer and if this application is approved, Bulga may as well be taken off the map.


Belinda Upward

Submission for Rio Tinto Mt Thorley Continuation Project

Application No. SSS 6465



Please find below my submission to the abovementioned application. My name is Andrew Upward and I have lived in Bulga all my life (36 years).

In 2013 the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of a previous application made by Rio Tinto. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must also be refused.

Rio Tinto is requesting approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". What Rio Tinto aren't stating is that they signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge, that it would not apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge area mined and that it would protect the village of Bulga. It was because of this agreement I purchased my property in Bulga in 2003. I had peace of mind knowing the Mine wasn't going to reach Saddle Ridge and my quiet lifestyle wasn't going to be jeopardised.

Rio Tinto Australia's website says that "Good community relations are as necessary for our business success as the effective management of our operations." Rio Tinto state time after time that they are community minded and care about the communities, however it seems this only happens if they make the quota of however many millions of money they need to make per year.

Rio Tinto also made this DA Application WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION with the people of Bulga. Rio Tinto met with community representatives 3 weeks before at the Community Consultative Committee, no advice was given on this proposed application even though it was well under way and ready to submit. The people that call Bulga home are going to be most impacted by this or any other expansion and yet Rio Tinto don't have the decency to hold a meeting to advise the people in the village on what's happening. What they did do is drop a fancy pamphlet in the mail notifying us of their application. Environmental Impact Statements that are required when making an application and the abovementioned pamphlets just don't get typed and printed over night, they take a couple of months to get produced and printed which proves they knew about the application when they met with the Community Consultative Committee. Rio Tinto only care about profit and not people.



Saddle Ridge
Saddle Ridge is a vital barrier between the Bulga village and the noise and dust of Warkworth Mine. In 2003 Rio Tinto signed a Deed of Agreement with the Government agreeing they would preserve this area and would never be mined.


Ecology
The Environmental Assessment Rio Tinto provided to support their application is appalling and full of lies. This extension will destroy an Endangered Ecological Community containing Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box forest vegetation.

The offset Rio Tinto propose is not `like for like' and should not be suggested. Saddle Ridge needs to be preserved in its own right.

Noise
Residents of Bulga are constantly complaining about noise coming from the Warkworth mine and Rio Tinto have been fined for exceeding noise limits. Last year alone, the mine received 800 noise complaints. No increase in noise levels is acceptable and more tight actions must be taken to lower existing noise levels from the Warkworth Mine. It is clear the mine cannot currently control the effects of noise so what hope have we got if they move closer? In the Environmental Impact Study submitted by the mine in support of their application, they have carefully selected noise data from one monitor that shows relative compliance and not data from other monitors that show constant excessive levels.

Air Quality
As a father of two children under 5, air quality is very important to me. Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents living in areas around open cut mines. Warkworth Mine has been fined for excessive dust and this will only get worse if the application is approved.

Jobs
Government must weigh up the benefit of jobs versus the cost to the community. People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without the constant noise, dust and visual impacts of mining.

Rio Tinto went on a big recruitment drive at their Warkworth Mine so they would have the man force ready to work when they got the approval they were expecting to extend their mine. So now for them to claim that they need this approval "to maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels" is upsetting. This is a scare tactic being used by Rio Tinto to their employees and also using it as a sympathy tactic for other people to feel sorry for their employees and support the expansion. This reason must not be the basis of mining into an agreed non-disturbance area.

Mines may provide jobs but if this is at the expense of the community's health associated with living near an open cut mine, then it is too big a price to pay.

All mines in the Hunter Valley have an end date, it comes part in parcel of working in the mines. The current end date for Warkworth mine is 2021, that is 8 year from now and gives employees plenty of time to find future employment.

It should also be stated that we have asked Rio Tinto to mine underground which they constantly refuse. The reason for this refusal is they won't make as much profit as they would if they open cut mined. Are they really looking out for their employees?

Visual Impact
The overburden removal and the ever increasing overburden dumps will be evident to the residents of Bulga who live on the more elevated properties. Further, the massive excavation into the eastern side of Saddle Ridge will have a major visual impact when viewing the Ridge from the east. The reinstatement and rehabilitation of the devastated Saddle Ridge will be impossible.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
The Aboriginal Cultural heritage in the expansion area must not be destroyed. Four out of seven artefacts remain from those identified in the earlier EA. With this expansion the remaining four will be destroyed. These artefacts were intending for preservation under the Deed of Agreement of 2003. This will not be honoured under this expansion.

Economic
No economic assessments in support of the project have been provided nor is their any evidence available to justify the statements of Rio Tinto that they must expand the mine to maintain its viability and jobs.

I believe Rio Tinto are now using a `bit by bit' approach which could continue for numerous years. Should the mine get approval for this application then the same argument will again be used by Rio Tinto in two years time to justify another expansion into Saddle Ridge and move closer to the village of Bulga. This will continue until they have mined the whole area that was rejected by the Land and Environment Court earlier this year.

I am asking you to take on board my submission and all submissions made by the residents of Bulga. I have worked hard to reach my goal of owning my own property and the idea that it can be ruined by Rio Tinto is heart breaking. If this expansion goes ahead, I would give up on my dream of owning a large property again anywhere, because nowhere is safe from the government approving mines for the sake of dollars.


Andrew Upward

I object to this application. This project cannot be considered in isolatio as this area of the Hunter Valley has a number of mines: Bulga Underground and Open Cut mine to the South East, Mount Thorley and Warkworth Mine to the East, Hunter Valley Operations to the North East and Wambo mine continuing around from North to North West. Residents in the area will be severely impacted by the noise and particulate pollution and will suffer the respiratory and cardio vascular illness and impediment which is recognised as prevalent near coal mines. I really feel for the people in this area who have been to court twice over Rio Tinto's expansion proposals. I am disgusted that the Dept of Planning and Infrastructure is still entertaining this expansion after it has been so clearly proven in two courts of law to be lacking in merit and not in the public interest.

I remember the Hunter Valley as a beautiful valley where people from Sydney would flock to visit the wineries and see the beautiful countryside. This destruction of this beautiful and productive countryside by mining must stop. This application must be rejected and the communities and the land should be protected for future generations.

I object to the Mt Thorley Continuation project. This mine has only asked for an extra 5 years to mine coal at Mt Thorley so why do they ask for a 21 year extension. This is only to be a dumping ground for the Warkworth Continuation Project. Most of our noise complaints at the moment occur from Mt Thorley Operations. So once the dumping of overburden begins with very high dumping points it will become increasingly louder. The visual will also be greatly affected with large overburden from not one mine but two mines. What will happen if Miller Pohang the owners of Mt Thorley decide to sell before the 21 years lease expires. This leaves the owners Warkworth Mining Limited who own Warkworth Mine in a difficult situation where they will not be able to dispose of their mined dirt.
Another point I'd like to make is how a tailings dam (Loders TSF) with a wall lift of RL150 can be built on a hill near a main road. Can MT guarantee that this tailings dam will not leak. In Appendix J Water Surface tables B.6 Year 9 to Year 21 (page 111-115) there is no mention of monitoring Loders TSF. Also in FIG 6.10 year 21 Loders TSF is rehabilitated but in FIG 6.11 Year 21 it is left as a tailings dam. Not sure which it is supposed to be, but if this is to be left open I oppose it to be left this way.
Basically the life of this project is reliable on the Warkworth Continuation Project going ahead except for the 5 years mining at Mt Thorley.

I wish to voice my support for the Mount Thorley Continuation Project. I strongly encourage the Dept. and Planning Assessment Commission to approve this project without further delay.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

The fact that the extension has been split into two applications, one for Mt Thorley and the other for Warkworth on paper, changes nothing in the impacts these mines will have on the ground and particularly for the residents of Bulga. An administrative change on the Part of Rio Tinto does not make the Decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court adn the NSW Supreme Court any less valid or make the impacts any less devastating.

People across Australia have been following this case with interest partly due to the advocacy and attention given to this matter by Radio Announcer Alan Jones. Further research of information available in the public domain confirms that this extension should never go ahead.

Please use common sense and integrity and reject SSD 6464 and SSD 6465. It is a matter of national significance and will impact future generations.

I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Mount Thorley coal mine (SSD 6465) and request that this Development Application be refused.

Both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal found against this proposal.

The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit. Bulga is not defined simply by the number of people who live there. People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around people who share common values.
Presently, residents are subjected to excessive levels of dust, noise, vibration and lights not normally experienced in a rural environment. This will worsen if the mine expansion is allowed.
If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.


Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents in the area around the open cut Mount Thorley mine. This fact cannot be ignored. Any further expansion of this mine will only further exceed the current dangerous levels of air pollution. The health implications of excessive exposure to particulates are well known. The Hunter Valley is enduring ever escalating dangerous levels of particulates and to approve the Mount Thorley mine extension would contribute further to already alarming particulate levels. The NSW Government may well be found responsible in a class action by the people of the Hunter Valley for the decisions, such as this present proposal, that are made despite contrary expert findings. To allow continued and escalating levels of exposure is not only negligent but a court may well find these decision makers liable.


The vibration and noise levels are already excessive and Rio Tinto is not applying the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy with regard to Low Frequency noise. Rio Tinto has been fined for exceeding noise limits but this so far has not been a deterrent. More stringent actions must be taken to reduce the existing levels from the Mount Thorley mine and no consideration should be given to compound this existing problem by allowing the proposed extension. The continuing breaches of the current approvals by Rio Tinto are being ignored by the NSW Government and this is unacceptable not only to the people of Bulga but many residents of the Hunter Valley.

Residents of Bulga continue to suffer deep distress about the possible demise of their village (first settled in 1820) and the damage done to their much loved landscape. This deep distress and anxiety will worsen if the mine expands even closer to the edge of their town.

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6465). This proposal seeks to expand the Mount Thorley coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.
Two NSW Courts found that this proposal should not proceed.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around the common values of its residents.
These Core Values embraced by residents of the Bulga area seem to have no place or value with Rio Tinto or the NSW Government.

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6465). This proposal seeks to expand the Mount Thorley coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
The NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal both found this proposal should not proceed.

The closure of Wallaby Scrub Road as part of this project is unacceptable.
Bulga Rural Fire brigade has an area of responsibility, extending to the north of Bulga along the Golden Highway almost to Carrington, just short of Jerrys Plains. Vehicle crashes and fires are a reasonable regular occurrence in that area and to access it via the Putty Road, Mt Thorley and Golden Highway takes an extra 8 minutes in a response vehicle.
As time is critical to safety and survival in such incidents, this additional travel is unacceptable and may cause loss of life or serious property loss.
Bulga Brigade also has members trained as "Community First Responders" these people are highly trained and may be called to medical emergencies, as well as vehicle and Industrial accidents. Again to impose extra travel time on them is not acceptable.
The provision by the mine of a Fire Trail on the western boundary wil not alleviate this travel as a Fire trail is unsuitable for high speed response driving. The trail is designed only to allow access to these western areas for fire suppression

I would like to take the opportunity to lodge my opposition to the expansion of this mine and to do so with the following major concerns that have not been properly prepared, evaluated and considered:
* The project has been refused in previous version following approvals by the Department of planning and its agent the PAC.
* The Approval was overturned in the LEC.
* The refusal to grant was supported in the Supreme Court.
* The company intends to destroy habitat lands already set aside under deed of agreement.
* The company intend to similar destroy, not temporarily relocate the section of the Great North road known locally as Wallaby Scrub road.
* The Heritage areas within the project both aboriginal and European are to be mined without proper consideration of the value to the local region and the State.
* The lack of the protection of the environment regarding water and the habitats being impacted is inappropriate.
* There is no realistic consideration for the people of Bulga and surrounds with the impacts of noise, dust, lighting and visual amenity only given lip service with no genuine solutions being reviewed.
* The economics is poorly reviewed and flawed.
* With the overwhelming quantity of documentation the time allowed is not realistic to prepare a comprehensive response and as such I would submit this brief objection with the request to be allowed a period of extension to provide a more adequate response.
The fact that the Mine has chosen to submit this application as a dual format being both individual and combined with the neighbouring mine further confused all issues.
Regards,
Ron Fenwick.

Objection - Mt Thorley Operations - Mt Thorley Continuation Project
Application Number: SSD 6465

I am writing to formally object to the Mt Thorley Continuation Project Application Number: SSD 6465, as detailed below
* Closure of Wallaby Scrub Road, as a regular user of this road any closure will cause myself increased travel time to my place of work, this will also create the need for more traffic at the Mt Thorley intersection with the Golden Highway which is a dangerous intersection particularly for vehicles accessing the Putty Road towards Bulga.

* I object to the removal of Saddle Ridge, as this ridge is a buffer zone for the local rural community and the loss of this ridge will impact the local rural community with noise above the New South Wales Industrial noise policy amenity criteria of 35 decibels

* As a local resident I am also concerned with the effects this will have on the Air Quality and Dust exposure that Open Cut Mining this close to my house will cause

* I also have concerns as to the social impact this approval could have on the township of Bulga which I reside, there is a potential for residents being forced to sell and move

Many of these concerns could be alleviated or reduced by underground mining, as has been prove in other Cities/Towns

Yours faithfully
Brett Gallagher

Objection - Mt Thorley Operations - Mt Thorley Continuation Project
Application Number: SSD 6465

I am writing to formally object to the Mt Thorley Continuation Project Application Number: SSD 6465, as detailed below
Closure of Wallaby Scrub Road,
o this road is part of the "The Great North Road", if this road is lost "The Convict Trail" will lose its Heritage Integrity
o as a regular user of this road any closure will cause myself increased travel time to my place of work and this will also create the need for more traffic at the Mt Thorley intersection with the Golden Highway and Putty Road, which is a dangerous intersection particularly for vehicles accessing the Putty Road towards Bulga.

* Removal of Saddle Ridge, as this ridge is a buffer zone for the local rural community and the loss of this ridge will impact the local rural community with noise above the New South Wales Industrial noise policy amenity criteria of 35 decibels.

* As a local resident I am also concerned with the effects this will have on the Air Quality and Dust exposure that Open Cut Mining this close to my house will cause

* I also have concerns as to the social impact this approval could have on the township of Bulga which I reside, there is a potential for residents being forced to sell and move

Many of these concerns could be alleviated or reduced by underground mining, as has been prove in other Cities/Towns. With an underground operation Wallaby Scrub Road would therefore also not need to be closed and could be maintained similar to nearby Charlton Road and Broke Road.

An underground operation would also still provide employment for locals and generate income for local business.

Yours faithfully
Rebecca Gallagher

I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Mount Thorley coal mine (SSD 6465) and request that this Development Application be refused.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.

The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit. Bulga is not defined simply by the number of people who live there. People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around people who share common values.
Presently, residents are subjected to excessive levels of dust, noise, vibration and lights not normally experienced in a rural environment. This will worsen if the mine expansion is allowed.

Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents in the area around the open cut Mount Thorley mine. This fact cannot be ignored. Any further expansion of this mine will only further exceed the current dangerous levels of air pollution. The health implications of excessive exposure to particulates are well known. The Hunter Valley is enduring ever escalating dangerous levels of particulates and to approve the Mount Thorley mine extension would contribute further to already alarming particulate levels. The NSW Government may well be found responsible in a class action by the people of the Hunter Valley for the decisions, such as this present proposal, that are made despite contrary expert findings. To allow continued and escalating levels of exposure is not only negligent but a court may well find these decision makers liable.

The vibration and noise levels are already excessive and Rio Tinto is not applying the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy with regard to Low Frequency noise. Rio Tinto has been fined for exceeding noise limits but this so far has not been a deterrent. More stringent actions must be taken to reduce the existing levels from the Mount Thorley mine and no consideration should be given to compound this existing problem by allowing the proposed extension. The continuing breaches of the current approvals by Rio Tinto are being ignored by the NSW Government and this is unacceptable not only to the people of Bulga but many residents of the Hunter Valley.
Residents of Bulga continue to suffer deep distress about the possible demise of their village (first settled in 1820) and the damage done to their much loved landscape. This deep distress and anxiety will worsen if the mine expands even closer to the edge of their town.

The screening effect of Saddle Ridge is of great significance and if this proposal is approved the removal of Saddle Ridge will have a huge detrimental visual impact on Bulga and its residents.
These adverse visual impacts will effect a large number of properties in and around Bulga and so create greater negative impacts, health issues and stress on the residents. Owners of properties will be able to see first hand, 24 hours a day, the workings of this open cut mine in close proximity. Residents of Bulga invested their lives and finances to enjoy a rural vista, not an open cut coal mine that operates 24/7
d they wouldn't mine Saddle Ridge and signed a Deed of Agreement with the NSW Government in 2003 agreeing to preserve Saddle Ridge as a Non Disturbance Area.
It is unconscionable that in 2013, Brad Hazzard, the former Minister for Energy, amended this protective
Saddle Ridge and the unique Warkworth Sands Woodland (WSW) are merely termed as features of interest by Rio Tinto whereas the scientific community have termed the WSW as world unique and an irreplaceable ecological area. The mining company says that avoidance of these areas is not possible for the continued viability of mining at the Mount Thorley mine. Despite the importance of these environmental areas as documented by both The NSW Land and Environment Court and The NSW Supreme Court of Appeal, Rio Tinto continues to press for their destruction.
This new application by Rio Tinto is just a rehashed version of the original 2010 Application that has been twice rejected in the NSW courts. Nothing has changed except for the fact that the NSW Government has altered the rules to allow the mine to overcome the points on which the judges made their decisions.
Recent surveys conducted into coal and the Hunter Valley economy show, that on average, respondents think that the coal industry employs four times as many people as it does. They were also under the impression that the coal industry contributes ten times as much to state finances as it does and the fact that respondents believed that the coal industry has considerable Australian ownership, when in fact it is 90 per cent foreign owned.
The people of the Hunter Valley, and NSW decision makers, should realise that the ever expanding coal industry is not required for the economic future of the Hunter Valley. Stopping the expansion of the Hunter coal industry and beginning to reduce output levels will not cause widespread unemployment or problems for state finances. It would, however, contribute to improvements in air quality and other health and environmental impacts and bring benefits for non-mining industries - benefits that, in the view of most respondents, would outweigh the minor costs.

This application to expand the Mount Thorley mine towards Bulga will exacerbate the same negative impacts, health dangers and loss of both Saddle Ridge and Warkworth Sands Woodland. This application should be rejected as was the original application where four of the most senior Judges of The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected and said " On balance, this proposal has no merit".
Both the lodging of this current application made on June 24th, 2014 and its acceptance shows complete contempt for the Court process, the environment, the rural community of Bulga and the lifestyle and health that it's residents are desperately trying to preserve.


Multinational mining company Rio Tinto is defying the verdict of the Supreme Court and will attempt to push ahead with an extension of the Mount Thorley Warkworth open-cut coal mine.
Rio Tinto said that it would go ahead with its plans despite the ruling, which upheld an earlier decision by the NSW Land and Environment Court to block the mine after finding the expected economic benefits of the expansion did not justify its environmental impacts.
Opponents of the extension to the mine said it would create increased levels of dust as well as industrial noise. Furthermore, a large area of endangered eco-systems previously set aside to compensate for earlier mine work would also face destruction by the expansion.
Nonetheless, Rio Tinto has already indicated that it will resubmit a similar

Objection Mount Thorley Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6465). This proposal seeks to expand the Mount Thorley coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.

Decisions by both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal stated that "this proposal on balance has no merit". The decision has been made by the Law of the Land not some trumped up kangaroo court.
If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around the common values of its residents.
These Core Values embraced by residents of the Bulga area seem to have no place or value with Rio Tinto or the NSW Government.
:

Objection Mount Thorley Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

Objection Mount Thorley Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

Objection Mount Thorley Continuation
The supposed new application is not new in a true sense. It is merely the previously rejected application split into Mount Thorley and Warkworth.
The reasons why it should be rejected are listed in the Land and Environment Court Judgement of Justice Preston and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Appeal. One of Preston's reasons was that it was not economic. Nothing has changed, it is still uneconomic when you incorporate ALL of the issues.

I strongly oppose the 2014 Continuation Project (SSD 6465). This proposal seeks to expand the Mount Thorley coal mine and I request that this Development Application be refused.
Two NSW Courts found that this proposal should not proceed.

If this proposed expansion is allowed there will be further significant negative impacts arising from the continued and excessive levels of dust and noise. Health issues will escalate and we will witness permanent and irreparable damage to our immediate natural environment.
The negative impacts of mining borne by the Bulga community are of much greater significance than given credit.
People selected Bulga for the rural lifestyle and so the community is built around the common values of its residents.
These Core Values embraced by residents of the Bulga area seem to have no place or value with Rio Tinto or the NSW Government.