Tasman Coal Mine Extension

The proposed increase in public road transport of coal must not be allowed as part of this application, as stated in E.I.S. there are other much better alternatives. Road transport as per cost benefit analysis is the cheapest, not the best method. Also as per cost benefit analysis, all maintenance of the road is $0, "Furthermore from an economic perspective any increase in use of the public road network can result in an increased probability of accidents as well as an increase in road pavement damage. Road pavement damage costs are already included in the economic analysis through the road haulage contractor costs. These contractor costs would include the amountisation of operating costs including payments to labour, fuel, vehicle operating costs & heavy vehicle registration fees which includes heavy vehicle charges which aim to reflect road pavement damage costs & future road infrastructure requirements[National Transport Comissions 2012]. Given that it is stated in the E.I.S. that George Booth Drive funding will be downgraded by the R.M.S. who will then be responsible for the pavement damage if Tasman does not consider it should? I cannot see why this should not be treated as a new application when the Pit Top is located on ABEL Lease EL5497, making this an "extension" allows Yancoal/Donaldson to not only use their existing public road haulage but to ask to extend it. In light of the present circumstances regarding public health associated with airborne coal dust & noxious diesel exhaust fumes public road transport would be very difficult to justify at present, therefore an "extension" might attract less problems. Also when Yancoal/Donaldson puts in its next "extension" to drive northwest on ABEL EL 5497 the public road transport is again in place for it. The bottom line is that Yancoal/Donaldson basically gets a free public funded private transport road & the residents of George Booth Drive get an indefinite sentence of a Tasman coal truck passing their house every 2 minutes 30 seconds, 15 hours a day, every second saturday PLUS "Any extras as considered necessary". What a joke, this means that 24hrs a day 7 days a week "because it is necessary" to fill that ship in Newcastle Harbor. Sounds like a signed blank cheque to me. The logical answer to this ridiculous situation must surely be a conveyor belt system to transport this & future coal from this & the other adjacent leases. Not forgetting the future problems on John Renshaw Drive if the Lower Hunter Lands Northern Estate proceeds. Make road transport not a part of this approval & look to the future. I have a past associated with underground mining, so I am not against this mine, I simply think that in 2012 when other much better, cleaner, safer methods of getting coal from point A to point B are available, cost should take a back seat this time.In the E.I.S. this multi national company lists as one of its benefits to the economy as paying the Mineral Resources Rent Tax, so a conveyor system is within their means. Therefore I urge you to not allow the continuation of road transport of coal as a condition of the approval of the Tasman Mine "Extension". thank you, Kelvin Sweeney.

G H D completed a Safety Review for Yancoal/Donaldson dated April 2012 for their E.I.S. My property was grouped with my neighbours as No. 14. 1530 & 1558 George Booth Drive. The observations are correct in what is reported, but not completely reported. What is missing is the fact that my property has always had 2 entries, one at each end of the front boundary. The southern entry was acknowledged back when the original Approval Conditions were carried out , but the northern entry was not. This could have had something to do with the power pole mentioned in the report & I discussed this matter with Tony Sutherland at a community meeting in June. This pole has since been removed. The entry which was provided for access to the southern end of my property was poorly constructed. I have been told by Cessnock Council that I will have to replace it with a new one as in their opinion it does not meet Council Requirements. It appears as some tar was sprayed on the ground & some rocks tipped over it & it is now overgrown with grass. Substandard to say the least , especially when I saw the driveway at Valley Fresh Flowers when I attended the community meeting, it is how all of the driveways should have been done. I consider the suggested treatments section to be very misleading as does not cover all of the problems which exist at the entries to mine & my neighbours properties. It does not mention that my neighbour has to drive along his footpath to enter his property because his reconstructed driveway has a hole in it which allows a pool of water about 1.5 meters dia. & about 6" deep to form any time it rains. I pointed this out to Tony Sutherland with photographic evidence at the meeting, but so far to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done to correct their problem. Doesn"t the E I S say that driveways will be refurbished within 12 months of the thing getting approval? Obviously the word maintenance is not applicable. Thank you, kelvin sweeney.

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF

see attached PDF