Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

Sometimes common sense has to prevail in situations like this proposed coal mine in one of the growing residential regions in NSW.

1: The proposed mining location is under a water catchment area. The chances of permanent contamination to the water supply for 350,000 people, is extremely high - as per other incidents worldwide. The ability to repair any damage is extremely low - again as per other incidents worldwide. The ability of local authorities to force foreign organisations that cause environmental damage to remedy the damage is also extremely low.
2: For 28 years residents will be subjected to Coal dust. Coal dust travels many kilometres and is invisible to the naked eye. Coal dust is a known and dangerous risk to health. What price are we putting on the health of 350,000 residents?
3: The little State and federal revenue from this mine will be dwarfed by the cost to repair roads and infrastructure including sources for clean drinkable water and the increase in health costs for Central Coast residents.
4: Only a few of the residents of the Central Coast are aware of the proposal let alone the dramatic change the mine will bring to their health and standard of living on the Central Coast.
Is it worth the risk - common sense says no..

Carbon Based Environmental and Cbased Environmental support the Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

A fantastic development opportunity such as the Wallarah 2 Coal Project will bring much needed income and employment to the local, NSW and Australian economies. Approval of this project will demonstrate that NSW IS open for business.

Small businesses involved in the NSW mining industry are currently experiencing very difficult operating conditions and without such development further job losses in the industry are inevitable.

From the Development Application, the environmental Impacts can all be responsibly managed and present a low risk of adverse environmental Impacts.

The Wallarah 2 Coal Project has our full support and must be approved.

It was promised. "No ifs no buts" that this would not go ahead if this government were elected.
It is wrong and totally irresponsible to allow this mine in a water catchment.

I feel very strongly that this coal loader near Blue Haven should not go ahead.
Not only do I think that NSW should not be investing in coal, as a fuel of the past, and a big contributor to pollution and greenhouse gases into our future, but also that this beautiful area is of environmental importance to all the people of NSW and Australia and should be protected.

These resources of land, sea and air belong not to us, but to the future. We are trustees and the people of the future are relying on us to maintain them for their use also.

I don't think they have fully considered the impacts of this development on residential living. I am concerned about water contamination and the impacts on local wildlife and the future of many species.

I am astonished to hear that Wallarah 2 may still move forward. Aside from the fact that the rest of the world is moving away from coal and the long-term financial case for this mine is surely doubtful, I have real concerns about the impact that coal dust will have on the health of the Central Coast community. Further, the risk of subsidence and our water supply being compromised is far too great for this project to be justified. This mining lease should be repurchased.

Objection to the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine
I am a 16 year old girl and Jilliby is my home. I cannot express the dread that has taken hold of my heart as I learned more and more of the negative effects that the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine will
certainly have on my beloved home. My family's property is located on a stunning piece of land which backs straight onto Jilliby Conservation Land. The serenity that one experiences on this piece of paradise is breathtaking; sunlight dancing across our huge billabong, bellbirds singing their familiar melodies, our horses grazing in the paddocks, kangaroos on the front lawn, wind whistling through the native trees surrounding our house. The Wallarah 2 Coal Mine Proposal requests permission to destroy my home.

My main worry is the effects of subsidence. Although the mining company has pronounced that the project will cause limited damage, and any such damage will be compensated, I have struggled to understand how 2+ metres of subsidence could possibly cause anything less than irreparable
damage. According to the NSW Government's office of Environment & Heritage, "Active subsidence, which forms 90-95% of the total subsidence in most cases, follows the advance of the working face and usually occurs immediately". This means that the entirety of my family's property will almost certainly collapse, especially considering that it is located in the most severely affected area. Does this still sound like limited damage? Repairable damage? To make matters worse, the property will not collapse all at once. The mining project, under our property specifically, will be conducted in three separate sections over the course of 28 years. I shudder to think what the consequences of this subsidence would be if our house happened to border of one of these sections. How fast could compensation for our residence be offered? Would it ever be the same again? And what would happen if one of my family members happened to be inside the house? How does the mining company propose to compensate for my family's health and safety on our previously secure property? This property will be my parents retirement home for when they are older as well. What happens if in three decades time, when my parents are 80 years old, the land
underneath the property collapses? Or they are cut off in the case of an emergency? Even if the ground under our house remains intact through the subsidence, what happens if one of the 100
year old native trees surrounding our house falls onto it? Or the power lines that run across our property fall? Or our underground water tanks are destroyed? Or our billabong, which provides our
property and animals with water disappears? Even if our house could be fixed, I cannot see a remedy for the loss of our ancient flora.

My family members and I are all passionate horse riders. Our property is home to 6 beloved horses, which we take every possible opportunity to ride on 20 kilometre trail rides into the
Conversation Land. We are not the only ones who use this land for recreational purposes. Our community uses it to ride, hike, walk dogs, and trail drive 4-wheel drive vehicles. 2+ metres of
subsidence would certainly impact the safety of community members through landslides and rocks falling. The Conservation Area is very hilly, which makes subsidence worse. How does the mining company propose to repair the entire Conservation Area to compensate for our newly established lack of safety while riding? Our riding will no longer be enjoyable if we are constantly in fear of serious injury or death. On our property, fencing keeps our horses safely secured. When fences fall and the ground underneath them collapses, will they survive? And if they do, they are no longer safe. Are our beloved horses compensable? Certainly not to me.

In addition to our horses, goats, chickens, and alpaca, our property is home to an uncountable number of species of flora and fauna. Among them, wombats. What will happen to our wombats if their burrows collapse in response to the mining. Where would the water hens go if our billabong seeps into the ground and disappears? Would the bellbirds still sing if our native trees fall and their homes are destroyed? Would the rock wallabies that regularly visit our paddocks still come? How
can these losses be compensated?

The accuracy of many of the mining company's claims must be investigated. Firstly, there is a map in Appendix H of the Environmental Impact Statement which supposedly displays the locations of all the houses impacted, but our house is not shown to be a house, just a shed. How many more houses have been discounted when the severity of the impact of the mines is estimated? If ours isn't on the map, who is to say there aren't a dozen more families who's lives aren't being considered?

Secondly, the credibility of the company's claim of limited damage and full compensation for said damage must be questionable after the colossal impact that "unpredicted subsidence" due to mining has had on the Sugarloaf Conservation Area, which will be closed to the public for more than a decade. What happens if our property suffers from similar impact? Will we be forced to relocate? To leave our property for a decade until it is safe again, only to return to cracks up to two metres wide, 18 metres deep and 250 metres long such as were experienced in
Sugarloaf? Or perhaps a 120 by 70 metre chasm and cliffs covering our property. The Conservation Area in Sugarloaf has been deemed so dangerous due to safety risks including
rockfalls, large-scale landslide, and trees toppling that the company has refused to engage in any remediation work until the ground has stabilised. It has been years since the mining stopped and still movement has been detected. According to the National Parks Association, "their subsidence risk analysis was flawed in the first place, so I have no idea how we are to trust that this will not happen again in other areas of the park". If it could happen in other areas of the park then it could certainly happen to another area of the state.

Although remediation has been promised for any damage to property, Sugarloaf is, again, an example of the unreliability of these guarantees. In the Sugarloaf Conservation Area, a botched
remediation attempt resulted in a 280-metre grout spill down a stream. What happens if something like this happens to the Central Coast water catchments that supply water for 300,000 people? In this case, efforts to remediate the area caused more harm than good. How do we know it won't happen again? And even if the land is patched up, how will the loss of the stunning natural beauty of the property be compensated for? How can a value be placed upon it?

Another issue that I wish to address is the impact of the open top trains carrying coal through Newcastle. My Grandmother lives in Lake Macquarie and the train will pass right by her house.
How will this impact her health and the health of the many communities that the train passes through when coal dust pollutes the air? Repeated inhalation of coal dust is known to cause lung cancer and asthma attacks, as well as other heart and respiratory diseases. What is being done to ensure that these conditions do not affect the members of these communities?
For those that support this project on the grounds of employment benefits, I fail to understand how providing highly specialised and dangerous jobs for 300 people is worth the risk to the 250+
families who's property would be directly affected, not to mention the 300,000+ people who could be affected through contamination of the water supply. The economic benefit that these job opportunities create is overshadowed by the economic loss which so many people in the area would certainly experience. The specialised nature of the job means that barely any members of the Wallarah community would actually qualify for the job. Why should the residents of the area be
forced to bear the impact of a project which will bring no benefit to them in any way? Even including the money made from the coal, this is not a sustainable economic project. The coal industry is dying down in favour of renewable sources of energy, meaning there will be no long term benefits to the economy.
While I understand that building a coal mine in Wallarah as opposed to further inland is convenient and saves the mining company time and money, what I fail to understand is how so many people's lives are not worth the inconvenience that it would be to create the mine in another area. Australia is a big country with a small population. Could the company not find a piece of unpopulated land to mine? One where there would be no impact on people's health, safety, or property?

The harsh reality of this project is that it will destroy many lives for minimal gain. The stunning piece of paradise that is Wallarah should be for eternity, but the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine proposes to
destroy it.

Please consider the enormous loss that accompanies this project.

The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to the community, state and country.

The major concerns ally to the impacts of subsidence on the area and the extent of damage with little hope of restitution. This is evident in the impacts on the water and the property that will be severely impacted by this company and the government to "profit" from the exploiting of coal that is now in the hands of the state.
The NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" as is the potential for cumulative impacts on the aquifers. Impact is always claimed to be minimal despite the evidence of irreparable damage throughout the state mining areas with no appropriate evaluating works to support this claim.
Mining companies rely on your department taking the word of their consultants rather than seriously consider the damage that will be done.
Claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply is rubbish. Subsidence will create a downward corridor for the water to escape from the surface and aquifers above the coal being mined.
8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete is not insignificant.
It is too late after the aquifers are damage to make repairs- refer to the creeks and aquifers destroyed in the Hunter and Cataract regions.
The Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based.
Whilst discussing changes to stream alignment, MSEC states that there will be no significant changes, but what is regarded as significant.
36 panels are to be mined, 150 houses will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre and will most likely suffer further subsidence due to a host of reasons not considered.
Within the application reference is made to the uncertain nature and caution needed leading to a scenario of adaptive management as mining begins to proceed.
This type of experimental mining should not be carried out, let alone under modern homes within the expanding outer suburbs of Wyong.
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and should reject the proposal outright. This is not a realistic outcome and as such planning should immediately inform the unsuspecting owners of the properties in the area.
245 houses will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. This is unacceptable damage that cannot be rectified to any reasonable standard.
715 Rural Building Structures will be impacted and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree . The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.
These are more than minimal impact in any consideration.
They are catastrophic but do not seem significant if you have not experienced subsidence.
Consultants rely on the ignorance and gullibility of those inexperienced and illiterate in the field to assist the project through the system and later blame an unexpected or natural event to explain the mess that is left.
Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades. It does not affect them and does not affect the city of Sydney so, will this impact even be considered?
19 species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China, (CAMBA) Japan (JAMBA) and Korea itself (ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements. The demise will be blamed on climate change or some other event rather than the mine impacting on nature.
The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately.
The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water,infrastructure , amenity and health is breathtaking.

Environmental hazards black dust pollution.

My major concerns are the impacts of subsidence on the area that is to be mined by overseas interests to the detriment of the people of NSW. This is evident in the impacts on the water and the property that will be severely impacted by this company and the government to "profit" from the exploiting of coal that is now in the hands of the state.
The NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" and the need to protect the environment from the cumulative impacts on the aquifers are being ignored despite the evidence of irreparable damage throughout the state mining areas.
Mining companies rely on your department taking the word of their consultants rather than seriously consider the damage that will be done.
8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete is not insignificant.
It is too late after the aquifers are damage to make repairs- refer to the creeks and aquifers destroyed in the Hunter and Cataract regions.
Whilst discussing changes to stream alignment, MSEC states that there will be no significant changes, but what is regarded as significant and who should be the judge of this? Definitely not the consultant, the mining company or the government. They all profit from the pillage of the resource.
36 panels are to be mined, 150 houses will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre and will most likely suffer further subsidence due to a host of reasons not considered.
This type of mining should not be allowed, let alone under aquifers or homes.
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and should reject the proposal outright.
245 houses will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. This is unacceptable damage that cannot be rectified to any reasonable standard.
715 Rural Building Structures will be impacted and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree . The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.
These are more than minimal impact in any consideration.
They are catastrophic but do not seem significant if you have not experienced subsidence.
Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and along the rail corridor from Morisset to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal well into the future. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades. It does not affect them and does not affect the city of Sydney, will this impact even be considered?
The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately.
The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water,infrastructure , amenity and health is breathtaking.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.
I object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:
- Is located on Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land. The soil assessment to determine agricultural impact to soil and water resources is not in accordance with relevant Strategic Agricultural Land Policy. Therefore the impacts have not been assessed appropriately. The assessment includes limited soil data and is grossly inadequate.

- The health impacts to the local Blue Haven community from coal dust are too great a risk relative to the low economic return of the mine

- The potential loss of water for the central coast community is too great a risk ghiven the huge housing boom in the area.

In summary, the social and environmental risks out way the low economic return.

I object to the Wallarah 2 coal mine. I am part of the community directly affected of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas. My health and livelihood will be threatened by this project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit. With the risks associated to the ecosystem, the opposition of the traditional owners of the land the Darkinjung peoples, the expected high incidence of subsidence and the risk to the water catchment, it is hard to understand why the government persists in accepting modifications to the proposed mine.
KORES is withdrawing from overseas resources development according to the Korean news. From the newswires this week, "Korea Resources Corp. is putting its stake in three soft coal mines in Australia for sale, the book value of which exceeds 150 billion won (US$133.93 million), according to Korea Economic Daily on Aug. 30th. KORES has posted requests for proposal to select a sales manager and plans to accept letters of intent by Sept. 21. The preferred bidder will be announced on Oct. 5 and the sale will be completed by the end of 2017." The Wallarah 2 or Wyong Areas Coal Joint Venture is currently comprised of the following ownership structure: Kores Australia Pty Ltd - 82.25%; Sojitz Coal Resources Pty Ltd - 5.00%; Kyungdong Australia Pty Ltd - 4.25%; SK Networks Resources Australia (Wyong) Pty Ltd - 4.25%; SK Networks Resources Pty Ltd - 4.25%. Therefore, the major partner is exiting the business. Are they just waiting to get approval to recoup their expenses and sell a more valuable asset? This would mean that a partner with 90% interest in the business would be selling. How could a government contemplate granting a licence at this point in time?
With respect to the proposal, the emphasis on the current amendments seem to bypass the concerns of the community and focus on the fact the original rail spur will not be built and will be replaced by a conveyor system. Let's focus on facts:
From Monitoring and management of subsidence induced by longwall coal mining activity IESC (August 2015); "Longwall coal mining subsidence can affect groundwater resources in the collapse and fracture zone immediately above the mined coal seam and the overlying strata." This should not be tolerated within a catchment zone.
Also, the report states: "Subsidence caused by longwall mining techniques has been found to have impacts on surface water assets including rivers and wetlands and associated ecosystems." How could the government be contemplating this mine within an important town resource?

Water NSW spoke about the proposed expansion of Illawarra Coal's Dendrobium mine, which it said "could pose an "unacceptable" risk to the water supply. In a decision that shows WaterNSW is firming its stance on protecting the water catchment, the agency said the miner had so far had a "greater than expected" impact on a catchment creek, and this would worsen if allowed to continue.
WaterNSW said subsidence from the first three longwalls in the new Area 3B is "causing the diversion of significant volumes of surface flows" out of the surface storages that form the catchment." This shows proof of the risks associated with the longwall mining in the region. More importantly, it shows the risk to the catchment water supply. Why would the NSW government be contemplating more mining in the same format in the same region?

This mining application needs to be rejected once again.

I wish to register my strong support for the project, specifically the current DA Amendment.
The project has shown that it has comprehensively addressed the environmental and social issues more than adequately and it will generate significant employment and economic benefits to the region over the long term. The project is suitably compatible with all existing land uses and

I support the project. It has negligible to minor impacts which are well managed and controlled. The project will bring long term jobs and flow-on employments that will benefit the region's economy for many years.

I object to it.

Please do not allow this coal mine to go ahead. We need to be letting go of coal and focussing on renewable energy for own own health and the health of the planet.

Australia has more than enough coal mines to satisfy the declining market. It is now time to look at other more sustainable and renewable energy options.

Thank you for this opportunity to make a submission in relation to this project.

The Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Inc objects to the project.

Our objection is, in summary, based on the following factors:

- Uncertainty over the future of the project itself after recent announcements by the South Korean Government that KORES should withdraw from overseas development projects (including Wallarah 2)

- The risk posed to the Wyong water catchment (acknowledged previously by then opposition leader Barry O'Farrell who promised no such mining, "no ifs, no buts")

- The blatant disregard of the wishes of the local Darkinjung people and the ham-fisted attempt in this latest iteration of the project proposal to circumvent them as natural stakeholders

- The strength of objection by locally affected communities.

Yours faithfully,



CRAIG SHAW
Secretary, Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Inc