Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I strongly oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine.
I used to be a resident of Forbesdale and left mid way through last year (taking a loss in the value of my only asset - my home) as a direct result of the stress of the possibility of this mine going ahead. Put simply, my mental and physical health was deteriorating and I had to leave. I have witnessed the health and happiness of my former neighbours suffer as well and I am sick with worry for them all.
I feel that GRL has always held the Forbesdale community with contempt; there is no way this mine should be so close to the homes of the residents here.
Other reasons why this mine should NOT be approved include: health impacts on the greater Gloucester population; the clean green image of the town and the impact of the loss
of tourism; the potential for damage to air and water; the absolute loss of the visual beauty of the area; the impact on agriculture and the fact that mining is an outdated, dirty and unsustainable industry.
I oppose the Rocky Hill mine, but should it be approved then a condition of consent MUST be that the homes in Forbesdale are placed in an acquisition zone, to allow them to leave. NOONE WANTS TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO AN OPEN CUT COALMINE!!!

Why destroy the tourism industry of Gloucester with something that will only last 20 years, can never be (and is not expected to be) rehabilitated and will be forever a blot on the beautiful landscape and agricultural industries of the area. There are large areas of NSW that are not in small narrow valleys where the mining industry does not impact in such a drastic way. Mining should be restricted to these areas. The resultant health and amenity impacts to the residents of Gloucester cannot be monitored without serious support by the government which i frankly do not trust to ensure the resources required to do so.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine as any new coal mine is a direct threat to not only my children's future but the future of our whole planet. We need to stabilise growth and not continue with an economy based on never ending growth on the back of finite resources. The science is out, the coal that is left must stay in the ground for us all to survive.

i have serious concerns for the welfare of our Earth,there is a better way for all of our children please stop the greed

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Modification

One would have to ask, why would the NSW Government justify a green field coal mine just 900metres from a residential area. Gloucester is an area of rural beauty, with sustainable industries of tourism, dairies and cattle farming. Not the place for a coal mine. Coking coal is not in demand around the world. There is enough stockpiled to adequately supply the steel making industry. Coal mining is not a sustainable industry, with fluctuating prices and worker layoffs.

The benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW
is debatable. You are just creating yet another mine to compete with the mines in NSW which are already struggling.

GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes.

Most of the profit from this company will go overseas.
The NSW Government needs to invest in renewables, particularly in rural areas where employment is low.
Towns, like Gloucester could be embracing the new world of solar, thermal solar, biomass, wind and hydro. So many options with huge benefits, like, reduced carbon emissions, lower power bills, regional economic development and stable job creation.

I am yet to see a coal mine rehabilitate a site back to its former condition a few have tried but failed. Many run out o money and the site is never back to its original condition and will never be the same again.

Yours faithfully
Thomas Newlands

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD 5156 and the Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD 4966 MOD 1.

As a regular visitor to Gloucester I am disturbed by plans to extend coal mining in the area. I believe it will negatively impact major industries in the area including farming and tourism. The increase in air and noise pollution and the increased wear and tear on roads which are already sorely in need of better maintenance are only some of the negative effects of increased mining.
I am also concerned by the proposed location of the developments, which seem far too close to populated areas. Coal dust and other air pollutants are harmful to people of all ages, but particularly the elderly and children.
I do not believe there is a compelling case for increased coal mining, either on a local or global level and I strongly advise that the NSW Government does not approve these mining works.
Yours sincerely

Rev Dr Niall McKay

I am deeply concerned about the prospect of a new coal mine at Gloucester. We need to move away from our dependence on dirty fossil fuels and move to clean renewable energy. Our future economy will not be based on ecologically destructive technologies, so why invest in more of it now, when the effects of rising global temperatures are exceeding what scientists had previously predicted? Coastal erosion, more extreme weather, shrinking ice mass.... There is absolutely no time for inaction, we must start acting responsibly and resist business as usual.

Delete my personal information before publication.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156 and the Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD-4966 MOD 1

I am a regular visitor to Gloucester and the surrounding region. It is a beautiful area and an amazing asset to the Sydney weekend escapee.
I fail to see how an open-cut coal mine can be sought after in our current day! And also, how it can co-exist with other industries in the area. Tourism is a major industry for this region and it brings in thousands of people and dollars each year, for the local GDP - which is far more important AND sustainable than the cheap thrills that the international GDP seems to strive for.
Why not endeavour towards a sustainable energy for the region? Or are solar panels less attractive than an open cut coal mine. That's just a visual jab, the environmental jab will hurt far worse, as it commonly does in the world of mining.
I will certainly reconsider my Sydney escapee destination if the area is slated to turn into a landscape that looks like the disaster that has been so kindly afforded to much of the Hunter Valley (and let's be honest, many parts of the rest of the world).

Where is the vision for a future that everyone can take part in and enjoy??

A few other reasons I strongly oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project:

1. Proximity to residential areas
The mine is proposed only 900metres from the residential area of Forbesdale. These residents will carry an unacceptable burden and will be impacted by dust, noise and loss of amenity, resulting in risks to their health and loss of property value.

2. Impacts on Health
Health impacts from open-cut coalmines are well documented. With most of Gloucester township, including the hospital and schools, falling within the 5km health impact zone of the Rocky Hill mine, this places a large percentage of the population at risk. Those most affected by the health impacts are the very young, the elderly and the sick.

3. Impact on Tourism, worth $51M per annum to the Gloucester economy
An open-cut coalmine within 5km of Gloucester and within sight of the Bucketts Way will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. The mine will risk the jobs of hundreds employed in the tourism industry.

4. Environment
The proposed mine is in the Avon Valley and in the catchment area of the Manning River. This supplies drinking water to over 80,000 people. There is definite potential for contamination of the water in the catchment.

Gloucester does not need this mine, Australia does not need this mine. This mine should not be approved.
And the real question should not be about the viability of this project, but why would the Government approve a mine that is paying so little to the coffers of NSW?


Regards,


I have not made a reportable political donation

Re: Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD5156
Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD-4966 MOD1


Dear Sir

I strongly oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Coal Extension Project. This proposal is an insult to the people of Gloucester, an open-cut mine so close to a densely settled population spells disaster to health, and to the environment, the economy and the water supply of the region.

1. Noise
Because I have lived close enough to the Stratford Mine since it first opened to have been affected by noise, I am well aware of the impact this has on quality of life. I cannot describe the relief I felt when the mine ceased operations, though I am still affected by noise from the Stratford Coal Handling and Processing Plant (SCHPP). However, if the Rocky Hill Coal Project is allowed to go ahead I know from experience that the noise of the fleet taking coal to the SCHPP will again take over my life. It will be much worse for those who live closer to the mine than I do (4kms). Some residents are only 900 metres from the proposed pit.

The SCHPP works 24 hours a day so that noise is continuous. I know that the bulldozer there cannot be adapted to reduce noise as this has always been the response of Yancoal to the many complaints received over the years. It is obvious with the greater volume of coal proposed for handling, this noise will intensify.

Irritating noise, foreign to the environment, which continues for hours on end is debilitating to physical and mental health. The low frequency noise which is not even measured or taken into account is known to cause serious health problems.

2. Night work.
While GRL advertises that there will be no night-time mining, the submission shows that after 3 years it will work the pit from 7:00am to 10.00pm, 6 days a week. At night, both dust and noise hazards are greatly increased and there is the additional problem of lighting which is reflected against the clouds and is dazzling for those living close to the open pit. This illumination turns a rural landscape into that of a city and is completely foreign to the area.

3. Health
This E.I.S. doesn't even mention health. There is a vast amount of research available - it was recognized even in the days of the Industrial Revolution centuries ago, that coal dust is a health hazard and now there is the added and even more dangerous fine particle hazard from diesel which will be emitted from all the vehicles used in the coal extraction and transport.

The Department of Health's website gives warnings of the effects of blasting, yet nothing has been done to monitor this and protect the residents who live near the Yancoal Stratford and Duralie Operations. We can expect the same if the Rocky Hill Mine Project is allowed to start blasting next to the township of Gloucester where the population is far greater than the villages and farm areas already affected.

4. Water Contamination
GRL's Rocky Hill Mine Project water management proposals are almost identical with AGL's Gas Project. The heavily polluted `produced water' from the coal seam which is being extracted is to be allowed in many circumstances to run off into the river and acquifers. This water includes BTEX which was the reason the EPA shut down an AGL exploratory well in the same area. The salt and dangerous minerals which would be extracted from the proposed processing plant have no defined destination. Again, AGL was unable to find a suitable deposit for this waste in NSW, so where will GRL find one?

This new mine is in an area of flowing rivers so run-off and contamination of water supplies is much more likely than at the existing open-cut at Stratford. It should be remembered that a blast opened a huge fissure at Stratford due to "an unchartered fault". This caused closure of Wenham Cox Road and crossed "Dog Trap Creek'. The fissure had to be filled with tonnes of concrete to stabilize the area. Faulting was a recognized problem for AGL also.

5. Economy
I know from my experience here that productive land is lost to mining and this sustainable alternative cannot be restored to the local economy. Stratford mine has not been restored to "better than before" as the Rocky Hill promoters claim can be done with their new mine, simply because this is not possible. This has been touted in the Hunter Valley, but the area was carefully chosen and was very small - a sample plot. I have yet to see the better-than-ever rehabilitation in the Hunter Valley and it has not happened here. The cliff face of dusty overburden from Stratford can be seen from the Bucketts Way. So can the mine extension overburden at Duralie. However, for a really good view of extensive overburden at Duralie, one can drive along Mammy Johnson's Creek Road through the formerly spectacularly beautiful rural area developed by the AA Co in the 19th Century.

If this mine goes ahead the scenic beauty of the Gloucester Valley will be irreparably damaged. A mine so close to town and overlooked by the Bucketts Way cannot be hidden. This will lead to a dramatic drop in tourist numbers. Claims of financial benefit to the town will be lost by the decrease in visitors and the loss of jobs in tourism.

Stratford Mine promised, I believe, the same number of employees that the Rocky Hill Mine Project anticipates. However, most of them proved to be drawn from outside the area and did not spend money in the town. Employees were then made redundant when Yancoal decided to halt extraction. We lost many small businesses (e.g., B/Bs, flower nurseries) in addition to the employment lost by families on rural properties who had to sell to the mine. These businesses would have been sustainable, most of them were flourishing and increasing in viability, but we have lost them all and with the closure of the mine we have lost that source of employment as well.

Mining is not only unsustainable - it destroys businesses which are sustainable. There is no reason to believe that the Rocky Hill Mine Project experience will be any different to Yancoal. Gloucester's future lies with the tourist and food production industries. There are also small businesses, such as "Drifta Kitchens" employing about 50 workers, which would continue and expand if the town were not endangered by a new open-cut mine on the doorstep.

Conclusion

My opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Project Application and the Stratford Coal Extension Project Application is based on my personal research and experience with extraction industries in this area over the past twenty years. Our governments have done nothing to support our citizens and refuse to acknowledge the economic cost of the health problems and suffering caused by open-cut coal mining. So much is promised but so little is delivered. It does not matter how many dust monitoring stations are set up - measuring dust does not magically protect us from dust. The residents of Gloucester can only be protected by not allowing this Rocky Hill Mine Project to go ahead.

Patricia McCalden
Craven 2422

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project
This is my personal submission in opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Project at Gloucester.

I don't want the mine to be approved for the following reasons:
* My property is within 900-1100 meters of the proposed mine.
* My property is elevated therefore the visual impact from the eastern side will be greater. The southern side will be visually impacted by the coal loader.
* There will be an increase in noise levels due to the following:
o Increase in road traffic past the front of my home on the west side due to the activity created by the mine.
o Increase in rail traffic at the coal loader on the southern side of my home.
o Heavy earth moving equipment within the mine site.
o Drilling and blasting within the mine site.

* Damage to my property is of a concern (foundations, plaster cracking, and structural movement) due to the impact of blasting at the mine site.
* Toxic blast plumes from open cut coal mine. Concerns with the gases produced during blasting.
* Concerns regarding the increase in dust levels:
o Increase in dust and dirt covering my home my plants and trees.
o Increase in dust levels that will compromise the air quality.
o Increase in dust levels that would affect the quality of tank and ground water.

* The suggested operational hours of the coal mine would impact on my health:
o Interrupted sleep due to higher noise levels with the earth moving equipment and additional rail activity at the coal loader.
o Higher levels of road traffic noise.
o I am dusted with asbestos and my condition is progressing. Living that close to an open cut coal mine could severely impact on my ongoing lung condition.


I want to be in an acquisition/affectation zone.
* Retirement at Forbesdale is no longer an option due to the close proximity of the propose coal mine to my home.
* The option to sell my property at Forbesdale is compromised due to the close proximity of the proposed coal mine to my home.
* Forbesdale property forms part of my retirement portfolio whether I retire in my home or sell my home. The value of my retirement portfolio has greatly been reduced due to the close proximity of the proposed coal mine to my home.
* If the Rocky Hill Coal Project is approved I want GRL to purchase my Forbesdale property at the market value prior to the Rocky Hill Coal Project application. I should not be financially disadvantaged to line the pockets of the Government and GRL. I want to retire with the benefits and options that I have worked so hard to achieve.

Reject the application for the Rocky Hill Coal Project.
As the reader of this submission, you must consider the ongoing good health, environmental and social needs of the local community. Just stop and think about the financial devastation your decision could create in many decent hard working Australian lives.


I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me, thank you.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project
This is my personal submission in opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Project at Gloucester.

I don't want the mine to be approved for the following reasons:
* My property is within 900-1100 meters of the proposed mine.
* My property is elevated therefore the visual impact from the eastern side will be greater. The southern side will be visually impacted by the coal loader.
* There will be an increase in noise levels due to the following:
o Increase in road traffic past the front of my home on the west side due to the activity created by the mine.
o Increase in rail traffic at the coal loader on the southern side of my home.
o Heavy earth moving equipment within the mine site.
o Drilling and blasting within the mine site.

* Damage to my property is of a concern (foundations, plaster cracking, and structural movement) due to the impact of blasting at the mine site.
* Toxic blast plumes from open cut coal mine. Concerns with the gases produced during blasting.
* Concerns regarding the increase in dust levels:
o Increase in dust and dirt covering my home my plants and trees.
o Increase in dust levels that will compromise the air quality.
o Increase in dust levels that would affect the quality of tank and ground water.

* The suggested operational hours of the coal mine would impact on my health:
o Interrupted sleep due to higher noise levels with the earth moving equipment and additional rail activity at the coal loader.
o Higher levels of road traffic noise.
o I am dusted with asbestos and my condition is progressing. Living that close to an open cut coal mine could severely impact on my ongoing lung condition.


I want to be in an acquisition/affectation zone.
* Retirement at Forbesdale is no longer an option due to the close proximity of the propose coal mine to my home.
* The option to sell my property at Forbesdale is compromised due to the close proximity of the proposed coal mine to my home.
* Forbesdale property forms part of my retirement portfolio whether I retire in my home or sell my home. The value of my retirement portfolio has greatly been reduced due to the close proximity of the proposed coal mine to my home.
* If the Rocky Hill Coal Project is approved I want GRL to purchase my Forbesdale property at the market value prior to the Rocky Hill Coal Project application. I should not be financially disadvantaged to line the pockets of the Government and GRL. I want to retire with the benefits and options that I have worked so hard to achieve.

Reject the application for the Rocky Hill Coal Project.
As the reader of this submission, you must consider the ongoing good health, environmental and social needs of the local community. Just stop and think about the financial devastation your decision could create in many decent hard working Australian lives.


I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me, thank you.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project & the Stratford Modification
Because:
There should be no new coal mines or extensions to coal mines due to the climate emergency we are currently facing with climate change.
For this project in particular to have this mine 900 metres from residents homes is appalling, no amount of compensation can make up for the lifestyle that you will be inflicting on these poor people.
There is no demand for coal & the need for coal (including coking coal) is decreasing & will continue to decrease.
Tourism is the more sustainable path for a place like Gloucester & you will destroy that industry if you agree to this proposal
The health of the residents must come first & to live so close to a mine it is well documented the damage that this will do to the health of individuals both physical & mental.
In Australia water is a very precious commodity & the risk of contaminating the drinking water of 80,000 people should not even be considered.
Instead of such a destructive mine we should be investing in renewable energy
Thanks
Cathy Burgess

I wish to submit a letter of support for the Rocky Hill Coal Project.
This project represents a unique opportunity for the State of NSW to exploit some of its, now very rare, high quality coking coal reserves. Coking coals of comparable quality is rare and provides a vital supply for numerous on-flow industries, creating products and chemicals vital to everyday life.
This deposit is separate to and should not be confused with thermal coal used for power generation.
With the opportunity to utilise the already existing nearby Stratford Complex's Rail load-out and CHPP infrastructure now agreed upon, this Project is further enhanced by way of drastically reducing impact on the local environment though a large reduction in required construction.
Additionally, the (relatively) small scale of the Rocky Hill Coal Project is perfectly suited to provide an appropriately sized economic boon for the nearby township of Gloucester and surrounding villages located throughout the Gloucester Valley, without requiring the influx of a workers (or the necessary additional infrastructure such as camps etc) from outside the local area.
I honestly believe if this project were not to be approved, it would represent a prime opportunity lost for both the People of NSW and the township of Gloucester.

Director - Resource Assessments Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW, 2001

Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156 Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD-4966 MOD 1

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Modification

Why, I ask, would the NSW Government permit a green field coal mine just 900metres from a residential area. Gloucester is an area of rural beauty, with sustainable industries of tourism, dairies and cattle farming. Not the place for a coal mine.

Even coking coal is not in demand around the world. There is enough stockpiled to adequately supply the steel making industry. Coal mining is not a sustainable industry, with fluctuating prices and worker layoffs.

The benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW is debatable. GRL will pay $63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes. Most of the profit from this company will go overseas.

The NSW Government needs to invest in renewables, particularly in rural areas where employment is low. Towns, like Gloucester could be embracing the new world of solar, thermal solar, biomass, wind and hydro. So many options with huge benefits, like, reduced carbon emissions, lower power bills, regional economic development and stable job creation.

Gloucester could be a leading centre for renewables instead of following an out dated industry like coal. Isn't it about time we followed the rest of the world into the 21st century?

Yours sincerely,
Dr Eric van Beurden

My husband and I wish to lodge our submission AGAINST another mine in the Gloucester Valley. The mine is far too close to residential dwellings and will destroy a beautiful valley. The Gloucester people should not be considered as second class citizens who are a mere collateral damage in the greedy pursuit of a few. Make the region a prime example of renewable energy - it will create lots of sustainable jobs in the region without destroying the health and well being of an entire town. The town has been working hard to increase tourism and food sustainability and the rewards are coming in. A mine will destroy all of this and a lot more. And as entire countries are shutting down coal fired energy providers, Australia should be smarter and heavily invest in renewables. This is where the future lies!
Kind regards
Annemie Pelletier

The writing is on the wall. The community has had enough. Coal has had its day. Its time to move on. Cut your losses and move on out.

Director - Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir
I completely oppose both of the projects above.
We have friends in Gloucester who are totally opposed to the mine. They have shown us where the mine will be and we are amazed that the state government could approve a mine so close to houses. The scenic beauty of the Gloucester valley will be lost forever. This will lead to a drop in tourists.
Our friends are very concerned about any health issues that will arise from living near this mine. It is known that living near coal mines has a detrimental affect on health, including asthma and heart disease. The NSW Department of Health cannot deny the risks.
We ask that the NSW Planning Department do the right thing and not approve this mine, which will affect so many people in a negative way.
Yours faithfully
Kevin Doye
I have not made a reportable political donation

2142 Gloucester Tops Rd
Invergordon NSW 2422
[email protected]
28th September 2016

Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No. SSD 5156

Opposition to the Rocky Hill Coal Mine

I wish to draw to your attention to an anomaly and other matters of concern regarding the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Mine at Gloucester NSW. It is possible that you are not aware of some details that were made available to myself and others as representatives of a local community organisation, The Gloucester Project Inc.

When AJ Lucas initially started exploring and test drilling for CSG in the Gloucester Basin they invited representatives from the Gloucester Community to discuss the viability of CSG in the region. At the time, before the dangers of CSG were exposed, CSG was seen as a possible transitional fuel to bridge between coal dependence and future renewable energy sources. The organisation that I represented was genuinely exploring possible solutions for our region and had some very open and frank discussions with Lucas representatives. This positive,and I believe genuine and well- intentioned relationship continued when AGL took over from Lucas.

During the following years of discussion and information gathering we were confidentially given access to water testing results, drilled core samples and other similar exploration material and information. Although the focus at the time was on CSG, coal deposits and related impacts were also discussed. It was also explained to us that Lucas and subsequently AGL, had to provide all their results to the coal companies, including Rocky Hill proponents.

From our observations of core samples, accessible coal deposit calculations, estimated profit projections and subsequent discussions with representatives from AGL it became very clear that even with the then attractive prices being obtained for prime coking coal that the amount of accessible coal was, according to AGL reps, NOT sufficient to even "cover the cost of the coal loader". This led to further information being verbally given, but backed up with more core samples to support the assertions as well as imaging of the faults, layers of coal and sedimentary deposits.

This information invariably led to discussion about the economic viability of the proposed Rocky Hill Coal mine. As well as AGL's scientific evidence we also noted that Stratford Coal had relinquished their license over the area of interest (which Rocky Hill companies had taken up) stating their reason for giving up the license was "not sufficient ACCESSIBLE coal" to warrant expansion of their operations. At the same time GRL's main representative, Mr Brian Wingate had been exposed for improper practices and was using intimidatory tactics with local property owners. With all this information it was not unreasonable for speculation about the legitimacy of the proposed new coal mine project.

Is the project legitimate? There is world wide evidence of similar mining schemes where investors were presented with pseudo-scientific information that implied good resources. Is it a scam, perhaps a front for money laundering? Is it a loop-hole for foreign investors to buy up prime Australian agricultural land which would not otherwise have been available except under the threat of mining? If the mine started to operate and it was found to be unviable how many jobs would be lost, who would pay out contractors if the company were declared bankrupt? Who would restore the land? The speculation and implications still continue.

Until now I have not made some of these facts public knowledge due to them been given in confidence but now that AGL is no longer involved in the region and there are calls for further submissions about the proposed Rocky Hill mine, I felt that it is appropriate to make my concerns known.

If this information is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the sources (I am prepared to sign a statutory declaration about what was discussed with Lucas/AGL reps), and the Rocky Hill Coal Project is found to be economically unviable then any Government/s or agencies associated with what appears to be a `questionable' deal will be tainted by association and perhaps even lose office if it could be shown they knew the facts or didn't demonstrate due diligence, prior to approval.

I strongly urge independent and government representatives to complete a proper economic study of this proposed coal project and not rely on the dubious projections of the project's promoters. I suspect you do not have accurate facts and figures to hand... the information provided by the company(s) appears to be questionable and based on limited estimations and projections (ref: amended DA/EIS). There are many economic flaws in the proposed project. Investors, contractors, employees and more will be adversely affected and will hold government/s or associated agencies accountable that have not done their homework and allow a project to commence that has the potential to lose billions of dollars of investors and tax payers money.

I am astonished by the possibility that this very economically-questionable Rocky Hill Coal Project can be even considered for approval.

Thanking you
Marianne Johnson
BA (psych), DipPE, TAE, Cert III hort, NDT

PS: I have also posted a hard copy of this submission

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the Stratford Modification

I do not understand how the NSW Government could justify a green field coal mine just
900metres from a residential area. Gloucester is an area of rural beauty, with sustainable
industries of tourism, dairies and cattle farming. Not the place for a coal mine.
Even coking coal is not in demand around the world. There is enough stockpiled to
adequately supply the steel making industry. Coal mining is not a sustainable industry, with
fluctuating prices and worker layoffs.
The benefit to the NSW Government and the people of NSW is debatable. GRL will pay
$63M in revenue and $60M in taxes. The life of the mine is 16 to 20 years. That means the
company is paying just over $3M a year for revenue and taxes. Most of the profit from this
company will go overseas.
The NSW Government needs to invest in renewables, particularly in rural areas where
employment is low. Towns, like Gloucester could be embracing the new world of solar,
thermal solar, biomass, wind and hydro. So many options with huge benefits, like, reduced
carbon emissions, lower power bills, regional economic development and stable job creation.
Gloucester could be the new renewables hub instead of following an out dated industry like
coal. Isn't it about time we followed the rest of the world into the 21st century?
Yours faithfully

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine because of the adverse effects of such mining on the physical environment - the damage caused by open-cut extraction and the pollution caused by burning for fuel - and its more general relationship to fossil fuels and their effect on climate. It is time to make the hard choices, put an end to unsustainable and detrimental practices and start investing in a viable energy future. I will actively support any initiative by your opponents which seeks to prevent this project from going ahead.