Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

This terminal (T4) must be rejected. It is likely to be a stranded asset as the world realises that coal must be left in the ground if we are to have any chance of keeping within two degrees warming, the accepted 'safe' level. Solar electricity is likely to have parity with coal-powered electricity before 2020 and possibly by 2017, so the world will be turning its back on thermal coal in favour of cleaner alternatives.

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels with not only the greatest amount of emissions when burnt, but also when mined or transported without cover, yields coal dust that carries considerable community health risks.

Coal exports are pushing the Australian dollar ever high with deleterious effects on other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, agriculture and tourism. Many of the coal companies are either completely foreign-owned or partly foreign-owned so profits are going off-shore, rather than making Australians wealthier, and at considerable environmental cost.

If Port Waratah Coal Services says there is no immediate need for another terminal, then why have it? Surely they would know.

I object to the T4 terminal for the following reasons.

The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.

The threat to waterbirds is great, the Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
This Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population. Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project and the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.

Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are already impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. Particle pollution from rail transport adds to these emmissions, 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered.

There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. This dubious additional employment is not explained.

PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic assessment of the T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably.

For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coalmines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. This is not acceptable to me and my family, more thoought needs to be given to this proposal in the light of the above.

Yours sincerely,

Susanne skates

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.
2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

I wish to object to the T4 Preferred Poject Report as Waratah Coal has not allayed any of the concerns expressed in my submission to their initial proposal to build a 4th coal terminal

The Hunter Estuary which supports 112 species of migratory birds including nationally and internationally species will be adversely affected by the proposal. Deep and Swan ponds will also be adversely impacted upon with 80% of Deep Pond (which supports at least 11 species of migratory birds) being wiped out as well as part of Swan Pond.
As Swan Pond is public land owned and managed by the National parks Service and part of a successful long-term restoration project it should be off limits to such a damaging development.

Of huge concern is the escalating effect of this proposal on greenhouse gas emissions, 174.2 Mt of carbon dioxide or 30% of Australia's emissions of carbon dipoxide will be released into the air if this proposal is allowed to go ahead.In addition the number of coal mines in the Upper Hunter needed to feed this monster will mean more destruction of agricultural land, dislocation of small communities and the razing of yet more bushland.

Health issues are of great concern also. There are 30,000 people living within 500 metres of the rail corridor and 16 schools containing 23,000 students all of whom will have to contend with much higher levels of PM10 levels with the increase in train movements. The PPR does not address air quality issues beyond 20metres from the corridor despite a recommendation from NSW Health that coal dust over a much larger distance needs to be considered.

PWCS does not provide any real justification for this project in economic terms or in terms of employment and if the deleterious effects it would have on biodiversity,the wetlands, carbon emissions and public health are considered it should be refused.

To Whom It May Concern

I am a parent, a grandparent, a resident and a teacher. I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed fourth coal terminal for the Port of Newcastle.

The proposed terminal would be built to more than double the amount of coal exported from the port which is already the largest coal export port in the world.

Areas around the coal terminals and coal rail corridors, including the existing stockpiles, near where the proposed terminal (T4) is likely to go, have recently been found to be producing elevated levels of fine particulate pollution, above recognised health standards.

You will be aware of the recent scandal involving the government's commissioned report into particulate pollution from coal trains. Allegedly 18 of the 21 findings from the original report were altered at the eleventh hour before being released to the public.

In the suburb where I live, and where my children attended the local public school, the levels of fine particulate pollution exceeded the standards on five out of the seven days of testing commissioned by the community group, CTAG.

When I clean the inside of my windows, there is always a black film that comes off first. Dusting is almost futile. In June, one of my fresh cleaning rags was used to clean the inside of my windows and, after a few swipes, was black with what appeared to be coal dust. The rag was submitted in evidence to the Senate Inquiry into Air Quality and Health.

This is the current situation. The T4 terminal is proposing to double the volume of coal transported through the valley and the port.

There are about 23,000 children attending schools within 500 metres of the coal train corridor, and in my area there are at least 9 schools within a kilometre of coal stock piles.

Coal dust, in fact, has been found as far afield as Tea Gardens which is no where near the coal corridor. In fact, no studies have been done on the spread of fine particulate pollution to determine the magnitude of the problem.

Nor have there been any comprehensive studies on thehealth impacts on coal-affected communities, despite repeated calls, for decades, for such a study. These calls have not been for nothing. These communities are experiencing cancer clusters, severe respiratory illnesses, cleft palates and more.

Despite calls for action, even the coal trains continue to rumble through our neighbourhoods uncovered.

We have a situation currently that includes inadequate monitoring, community monitoring that demonstrates companies are exceeding specified health guidelines for particulate pollution on a grand scale, compromised health in children and adults living in the vicinity of the mines, the rail corridors and the stockpiles.

Yet, T4 is planning to double the problem. The profits of these large companies should not come at the expense of the communities in which we live and the future of our children.

In addition, the current site for the proposed terminal is adjacent to internationally recognised wetlands, and would compromise the critical habitat for globally migrating birds.

The greenhouse pollution from coal shipped from T4, should it go ahead, would be more than 300 million tonnes per year - more than every power station and every vehicle in Australia combined.

This would be environmental vandalism on a grand scale.

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

1.Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.

2.The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

3.Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population.

4.Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.

5.Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.

6.Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.

7.Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.

8.Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

9.Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.

10.Economics: PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic assessment of the
T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably. For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coal mines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWCS. (Read Rod Campbell's economic analysis here.)

I wish to register my objection to a further, T4, coal terminal in Newcastle. At best it is plain superfluous, but actually has nothing to recommend it.

We have known for decades that the mining and burning of fossil fuel is the largest single contributor to carbon pollution and direct and indirect environmental, sociological and economic damage. We do not need any more coal facilities or infra-structure. The industry needs to put itself into reverse and close, not open, projects thereby putting itself in the vanguard of the effort to lower Australia's carbon footprint.

Toni McNamara
Port Douglas 4877

please, no more coal mining or export. we do too much already.

"I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweighed any short-term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These impacts include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.
2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3. Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population.
4. Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.
5. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.
6. Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.
7. Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.
8. Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.
9. Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.
10. Economics: PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic assessment of the T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably. For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coal mines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWCS."

I totally object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.

These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.

2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Lily Winters

I totally oppose this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.

2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Wilson Winters

I say no to T-4.

I totally object to the T4 project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.

These include:
1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.
2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours sincerely,

Lilo

"In addition to the many technical, scientific, financial and other reasons stated by others as to why this project should not proceed, as a resident of Stockton I object on the fundamental grounds of health and common sense - for not only myself and my family, but for the residents of a significant part of the Hunter Valley and Port of Newcastle.

The coal dust fallout (visible particles) on my house, roof, patios, and windows is worse now than it was some years ago. This can only lead to health issues. In addition, the mixing of unburnt marine fuels with this pollution, plus pm10 and pm5 particles, adds further health dangers and cleaning issues to all households in the wide fallout zones. Nothing I've read or heard goes anywhere near close to ensuring that these problems won't be exacerbated if T4 proceeds.

There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the Port's existing capacity won't cater for the likely 5-15 year demand for coal - especially as global warming issues become more widely accepted and are dealt with. For coal companies (or any enterprises) to rush in to make millions at the expense of the taxpayers and other citizens of this area/nation, is unsupportable. For bureaucrats and politicians to blindly ignore community wishes and common sense because they don't personally suffer the problems - is indefensible.

Please consider the many directly affected people, and the environment generally, and refuse the application for T4 to proceed.

I completely oppose the T4 project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.

These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.
2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours faithfully,

Mr H. Winters
Randwick, NSW, 2031

I totally object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.

2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours sincerely,

Wally Winters
Coogee, NSW, 2034

I am concerned about increasing levels of air-born coal dust from the coal stockpiles at Kooragang & from the transportation/loading of coal by train & onto the coal ships.
My home is at Maryville, which is already surrounded by coal operations at Carrington to the East, Port Waratah to the North, & Kooragang to the North-West.
The dust levels have definitely increased with the ramping up of coal operations in Newcastle during the last few years.
Residents of Mayfield, Tighes Hill, Maryville & Carrington have had enough of coal dust. The dust damages & devalues our properties, as well as damaging our health by constantly breathing the minute coal dust particles.
It is for the above reasons I strongly oppose any increase of coal operations/transportation close to our homes in Newcastle.

I totally object to the T4 project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.
2. The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3. Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year.

Yours sincerely

Ms Joann Winters
Coogee NSW 2034

No more coal ports on the East coast. We have seen the scientists say they are 95% sure of human involvement in global warming, and burning coal or exporting it is just putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, regards David

"My concern around the proposed T4 project is that the PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are grossly over exaggerated. It is highly likely that the proposed expansion of the coal port (and the increased risk to health, environmental degradation, habitat loss, etc, that goes with it) will never be economically viable. In September, Citibank released a report highlighting the diminishing profitability of the global coal market and called on investors to plan for a continued decline in demand. Given the release of similar reports over the last 6 months from Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Bernstein Research, all of which point to ""the beginning of the end or coal"", there is no guarantee this investment and expansion will deliver any economic benefit to the people of the Hunter or NSW. So the impacts on health, environmental degradation and habitat loss will be for nothing.

I have included details of the above mentioned reports below for reference and request that the Planning and Assessment Commission familiarise themselves with these reports before a decision is made.

Yours Sincerely
Thomas Mullaney

"Globally, Chinese demand growth for coal has been the primary driver or the backstop behind every new investment in coal mining over the last decade; the `global coal market' ended with the collapse in price in 2012; regional miners will see almost zero demand in China from 2015"
- (Bernstein Research, June 2013, "Asian Coal & Power: Less, Less, Less...The Beginning of the End of Coal")


"Significant shifts in China's economic structure and power sector demand a reassessment of coal's perpetual climb. Key drivers include: (1) reduction of air pollution; (2) structural downward shifts in China's GDP growth and energy intensity; (3) robust growth of China's renewables and nuclear capacity, along with increased availability of natural gas from pipeline/LNG imports and domestic production; (4) efficiency improvements in coal power plants and energy demand."
- (Citi Research - a division of Citigroup Global Markets Inc., September 2013, "The Unimaginable: Peak Coal in China")


"In the medium to long term, thermal seaborne coal markets face a combined threat of steadily growing supply in the largest producing regions and a levelling-off or decline in demand in consuming regions. Three of the most important demand centers, China, Europe and the US, contain the seeds of a softening in demand growth, while US export capability may grow. We believe this trend will develop out of emissions control standards, higher renewables output, a structural shift in the Chinese economy, improved transport infrastructure, and stagnating US demand."
- (Deutsche Bank Markets Research, May 2013, "Thermal Coal: Coal at a Crossroads")


"Mines are long-lived assets with a long payback period, and investment decisions today are sensitive not just to prices and margins today, but also to projections going well into the next decade. We believe that thermal coal's current position atop the fuel mix for global power generation will be gradually eroded by the following structural trends: 1) environmental regulations that discourage coal-fired generation, 2) strong competition from gas and renewable energy and 3) improvements in energy efficiency. The prospect of weaker demand growth and seaborne prices near marginal production costs suggest that most thermal coal growth projects will struggle to earn a positive return for their owners;"
- (Goldman Sachs Commodities Research, July 2013, "The Window for Thermal Coal is Closing")"