Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

I support the approval of the extension as it will keep me employed.
I moved hear for a better quality of life with my family from S.A and if i lost my job i would have to go back to doing FIFO work.
My youngest son is Autistic and to give him the best chance of leading a normal life i need my job to support him and the cost that are involved in that.

My husband works at the mine and with out his job we will lose our house and everything we have worked hard for.
He used to work in a flyin fly out job and didnt see the first 18 months of his son growing up.
This extention is very important to us, so we know that our families future is secure.

My job at the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine enables me to provide support to my family and remain living in an area that myself and my family enjoy and wish to remain in. Having relocated to this area from a place that did not have the support of the mining industry it was immediately obvious to us the largely positive impact the mining industry has on the local community both in providing employment opportunities and economic input via wages and the utilisation of local businesses. My husband and I like many families are working hard to provide support and educational opportunities for our children and should I lose my job our continued ability to provide this would be dramatically diminished.

MOUNT THORLEY WARKWORTH CONTINUATION PROJECT 2014


- The NSW Land and Environment Court examined the proposal to mine this area in very great detail and rejected it as without merit. In its examination the Court allowed very great leniency to Rio Tinto in daily adducing more and more evidence in support of its application, even though all matters to be raised should have been submitted to all parties in the `discovery ` period before the case.

- Subsequently the company and the Government of NSW lodged an appeal with the NSW Supreme Court claiming a lack of fairness and a number of other procedural errors. In a unanimous decision, the three most senior judges in the Supreme Court found against them and dismissed the appeal.

- The EIS submitted in support of the application is a massive 14 volumes. This is written in response to a document called "the Secretary's Requirements" (previously known as DGR requirements). This document, issued by the NSW Dept. of Planning, was published on 22 May 2014. The 14 volumes of the EIS, purporting to answer the Secretary's Requirements was published on or before 13 June 2014. One would question how such a document could have been prepared in this time, properly addressing the matters in the Secretary's Requirements. In fact, the document does not properly address these requirements.

- In the EIS, Rio Tinto has included huge volumes of data and statistics from far and wide in the Hunter Valley and some local and relevant matters. Some of these statistics are quite demonstrably wrong and would lead one to assume that the writers were being very loose with the truth. One example can be found in Table 4.4 in Appendix P. The Company states that 23.8% of privately owned properties in Bulga are unoccupied. That is 37 houses. Of the 156 houses in the Bulga area, we know of 3 that are unoccupied, two are mine owned, one being fire damaged and uninhabitable for years, the other having been found to contain asbestos. The third house is not occupied full time as it is a deceased estate. However, the family do spend weekends there.

- Another statistic shows the demographic of miners employed at the site. It shows 30% live in the Singleton Shire and 17% live in Maitland. This figure must have been taken from a very limited survey of employees as other statistics show 25% live in Singleton Shire and 32% live in Maitland. The skewing of these statistics would then heavily influence subsequent figures showing the economic impact of the mine closing, etc. There are many other errors found on a close reading of the 14 volumes.

- The Managing Director of Rio Tinto Coal argues that 1,300 jobs are at risk. In the Executive Summary of the EIS it shows 1,187 jobs. Other information puts the figure at somewhat less than that. However, were the mining to cease in 2015 as claimed by the EIS (if current approval continues until 2012) some hundreds of jobs would still exist in care and maintenance and rehabilitation. It could be argued that Mr. Salisbury is trying to pressure the government by continuously repeating the 1,300 figure.

- In any event, one must ask what price a number of mining jobs over the 380 residents of Bulga and the other locals living in Warkworth, Long Point, Gouldsvillle, Broke, Fordwich and Milbrodale. These folk will have their lives made intolerable by the presence of the mine with the additional dust, noise, blast effects etc. These communities have seen their property values decline and, in some cases are unable to sell at any price.

- The population of Bulga grew by almost twice the National average between the 2006 and 2011 Census. Clearly people did consider the area a good place to live. It clearly was not the case, as is argued, that people are wanting to move to larger towns or cities. Very importantly - the growth was in no small part due to a sense of security felt by locals after the 2003 approval, when the Government required Rio Tinto to sign a Deed guaranteeing they preserve Saddle Ridge and other areas in perpetuity. However, Rio Tinto, in an incredible display of disdain for rules, never executed the requirements of the Deed and subsequently Minister Hazzard amended it, making it ineffectual.

- Many residents made life decisions based on the existence of the Deed, bought homes, built homes, induced families to move to the area or stay, or did not move when they could. Those families now feel particularly cheated. More so when Rio Tinto says they cannot be held responsible for the life decisions of others!

- In the Secretary's Requirements, specific mention is made of the concerns of Bulga residents and certain criteria are to be addressed. There are vague statements in the EIS about measures to address increased noise and dust. However, social impacts are not addressed at all. A Social Impact Management Plan is necessary under the terms of the Secretary's requirements to address the likely impacts.

- Considerable work was done by the consultants to the Mine, EMM, in interviewing local residents and assessing their `perceived', `subjective' views - none of this material is included in the EIS.

- The number of workers employed can be disputed. At various stages in the EIS it talks of 1,300 employees, a table 5.1 in Appendix P shows a total of 1,300, but in the Executive Summary is a reference to 1,187 employees.

- The EIS claims there is no measurable impact on water. This is clearly untrue. The present landform west of Saddle ridge slopes substantially to the west, towards the Wollombi Brook. Rain which falls on this slope would normally find its way, via creeks, seasonal streams and underground aquifers into the Brook. When the area is subject to Open Cut mining, all water will fall into the pit. At the simple equation of 25mm of rain on 1 hectare = 1 megalitre of water, then if the 768 Hectares is mined, at the average annual rainfall of 600mm per annum, the potential is to lose at least 18,432 megalitres of runoff water per annum. This would make a total of over 313,000 megalitres over the projected life of the project. This number does not take account of the consequent loss of flows from unidentified underground aquifers that are in the area that will be impacted by these mines, neither does it take account of interrupted flows from the amended plan for Mount Thorley Mine. There is also the issue of the polluted water, mainly saline, which collects in unfilled pits of open cut mines. Clearly this problem will increase should approval be given to this project.

- This project cannot be considered in isolation. In this area of the Hunter Valley there are the Bulga underground and open cut mines to the South East, Mount Thorley and Warkworth Mine to the East, Hunter Valley operations to the North East and Wambo mine continuing around from North to North West. All of these mines create dust, which has a major immediate impact on residents. If a dust exceedance is recorded, it is very difficult to identify the culprit mine and no mine will take responsibility.

- Similarly all of these mines make noise and each blames the other for exceedances. Despite fairly sophisticated monitors being available, Warkworth Mine, operating as Mount Thorley does not have real time monitors in place in proper locations to measure noise and therefore adjust their operation to ensure compliance with limits. They seem to rely on complaints from residents, and then deny an exceedance. This is not surprising as their monitors are in the wrong place.

- The EIS Executive Summary states that the mine has very few issues of non-compliance with consent conditions. This does not equate with the call logs of complaints. Whilst numbers aren't available, residents own experience has allowed them to estimate that hundreds of complaints are made each year to the Mine and to Compliance Officers. These complaints are not trivial and very often noise exceedances are three and more times the consent limit.

- Dust presents other problems. On windy days thousands of hectares of exposed ground from SE to NW produce huge volumes of dust, much of it PM10 fine particulates. The Many millions of litres of diesel burned each year in the mines produce PM2.5 very fine particles. There are no safe levels of exposure to PM2.5 and PM 10 particles. Even the Dept of Planning's arbitrary limit is constantly exceeded and this limit allows for greater dust pollution than the NSW Dept of Health and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Consequently a high incidence of respiratory disease is reported neighbouring communities.

- Warkworth Sands Woodlands is a unique landform and its ecology is unique to the are. No amount of offsets can replace or replicate it. If mined the Warkworth Sands will disappear forever. As demonstrated during the Land & Environment Court hearing, the WS supports a plethora of endangered species of flora and substantial colonies of endangered fauna. Should the woodland be mined it is likely that the remnants of this flora and fauna would struggle to survive in new and different environments.

- Offsets - Again in the Land and Environment Court hearing, much was made of the fact that the mine was offering large offsets to the mined area. However, some of them are hundreds of kilometres away, near Ulan and Putty. Justice Preston found this very unsatisfactory as the offsets were not "like for like", ie the forests were different, both ecologically and in species of flora and fauna. In any event it was noted that these offsets already existed, so did nothing additional to improve ecological quality or diversity per se., but, the judge noted, like for like offsets should be just that, and close by so that, the local ecology could be somewhat maintained. Further, there is nothing in law that says these offsets will remain. Should a coal reserve be found below these areas there is nothing to prevent them from being mined. This demonstrates that the offset policy is little more than farcical.

- In the Warkworth Sands Woodlands and on Saddle Ridge are significant Aboriginal heritage sites, grinding grooves, middens, burial and bora grounds. These must be preserved to protect and preserve indigenous heritage. No coal sold overseas is worth the destruction of these important sites. This is not a specious claim, these sites have been identified for many years and many of the Wonnoruah people who live locally recognise and respect them.

- There are access issues relating to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road. If this road is closed, emergency vehicles will take a minimum of 8 minutes extra to travel the highways to these areas. In addition they will have to traverse considerable extra traffic which can lead to delays and its own emergency issues. In the last few years the area from Warkworth to Jerry Plains has been the site of a number of major vehicle crashes and fires, even an 8 minute delay in responding can mean that the situation becomes more critical. While the mine has offered a fire trail within their western boundary this will only allow access to the mine site and not be a reasonable emergency vehicle route.

- The visual impacts of an Open Cut mine do not have to be spelled out in detail: large piles of exposed rock crushed by blasting and excavation, huge lights at night to facilitate night operations, dust clouds following blasting and on windy days and the general `moonscape' left by a huge earthmoving operation. In its 2003 EIS Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine conceded that Saddle Ridge was an important visual barrier between residents to the west, including Bulga and Warkworth. Now they say it is of no consequence and removing Saddle Ridge will have minimal visual impact. Any of the residences in Bulga located higher than the creek bank will be looking directly into the mine and will be affected by the continuing workings. The mine proposes to plant screen trees - which would become effective as a visual barrier just about the time the mine finishes in 2031. Saddle Ridge MUST remain as a noise and visual protection for the village and surrounds.

- Since the Land & Environment Court found the project had no economic merit in 2012, the only thing that has changed is the price of coal which has since reduced. The natural consequence of this is: if the project was not economically sound then, it is even less so now!

- The economic benefit to Australia must also be questioned. Today 82% of mining profits are directed overseas and recently it has been demonstrated that companies have many ways of reducing their profits through international measures. Rio Tinto is a multinational and sends its profits overseas. It also is actively working to reduce its workforce through automation, with driverless trains, driverless trucks, huge investments into automated mining processes and the recent moves to reduce its contractor workforce.

- The social impact on residents of Bulga and surrounding districts is immense, as noted by Professor Albrecht in his evidence to the Land & Environment Court. Residents feel constant solastalgia, loss of sense of place and see that this project will substantially reduce their, quality of life, their property values, their ability to have their expected quiet enjoyment of their homes and the relaxed rural lifestyle that seemed guaranteed by the 2003 Deed.

- This lack of trust is exacerbated by the NSW Government's recent amendment to the Mining SEPP which makes the value of the resource the key consideration in assessing such projects, the same Government changing the rules relating to offsets and the Government's failure to enforce consent conditions on the existing mine. Residents say they have no faith that noise, dust and blasting limits will not be exceeded as the mine currently demonstrates it cannot (or will not) keep within imposed limits. If it is too noisy and too dusty when it is 7 kms away, how could one expect it to be less noisy and less dusty at a 2.6 km distance?

<WarkworthMineExpansionSubmissionPoints.txt>
MOUNT THORLEY WARKWORTH CONTINUATION PROJECT 2014


- The NSW Land and Environment Court examined the proposal to mine this area in very great detail and rejected it as without merit. In its examination the Court allowed very great leniency to Rio Tinto in daily adducing more and more evidence in support of its application, even though all matters to be raised should have been submitted to all parties in the `discovery ` period before the case.

- Subsequently the company and the Government of NSW lodged an appeal with the NSW Supreme Court claiming a lack of fairness and a number of other procedural errors. In a unanimous decision, the three most senior judges in the Supreme Court found against them and dismissed the appeal.

- The EIS submitted in support of the application is a massive 14 volumes. This is written in response to a document called "the Secretary's Requirements" (previously known as DGR requirements). This document, issued by the NSW Dept. of Planning, was published on 22 May 2014. The 14 volumes of the EIS, purporting to answer the Secretary's Requirements was published on or before 13 June 2014. One would question how such a document could have been prepared in this time, properly addressing the matters in the Secretary's Requirements. In fact, the document does not properly address these requirements.

- In the EIS, Rio Tinto has included huge volumes of data and statistics from far and wide in the Hunter Valley and some local and relevant matters. Some of these statistics are quite demonstrably wrong and would lead one to assume that the writers were being very loose with the truth. One example can be found in Table 4.4 in Appendix P. The Company states that 23.8% of privately owned properties in Bulga are unoccupied. That is 37 houses. Of the 156 houses in the Bulga area, we know of 3 that are unoccupied, two are mine owned, one being fire damaged and uninhabitable for years, the other having been found to contain asbestos. The third house is not occupied full time as it is a deceased estate. However, the family do spend weekends there.

- Another statistic shows the demographic of miners employed at the site. It shows 30% live in the Singleton Shire and 17% live in Maitland. This figure must have been taken from a very limited survey of employees as other statistics show 25% live in Singleton Shire and 32% live in Maitland. The skewing of these statistics would then heavily influence subsequent figures showing the economic impact of the mine closing, etc. There are many other errors found on a close reading of the 14 volumes.

- The Managing Director of Rio Tinto Coal argues that 1,300 jobs are at risk. In the Executive Summary of the EIS it shows 1,187 jobs. Other information puts the figure at somewhat less than that. However, were the mining to cease in 2015 as claimed by the EIS (if current approval continues until 2012) some hundreds of jobs would still exist in care and maintenance and rehabilitation. It could be argued that Mr. Salisbury is trying to pressure the government by continuously repeating the 1,300 figure.

- In any event, one must ask what price a number of mining jobs over the 380 residents of Bulga and the other locals living in Warkworth, Long Point, Gouldsvillle, Broke, Fordwich and Milbrodale. These folk will have their lives made intolerable by the presence of the mine with the additional dust, noise, blast effects etc. These communities have seen their property values decline and, in some cases are unable to sell at any price.

- The population of Bulga grew by almost twice the National average between the 2006 and 2011 Census. Clearly people did consider the area a good place to live. It clearly was not the case, as is argued, that people are wanting to move to larger towns or cities. Very importantly - the growth was in no small part due to a sense of security felt by locals after the 2003 approval, when the Government required Rio Tinto to sign a Deed guaranteeing they preserve Saddle Ridge and other areas in perpetuity. However, Rio Tinto, in an incredible display of disdain for rules, never executed the requirements of the Deed and subsequently Minister Hazzard amended it, making it ineffectual.

- Many residents made life decisions based on the existence of the Deed, bought homes, built homes, induced families to move to the area or stay, or did not move when they could. Those families now feel particularly cheated. More so when Rio Tinto says they cannot be held responsible for the life decisions of others!

- In the Secretary's Requirements, specific mention is made of the concerns of Bulga residents and certain criteria are to be addressed. There are vague statements in the EIS about measures to address increased noise and dust. However, social impacts are not addressed at all. A Social Impact Management Plan is necessary under the terms of the Secretary's requirements to address the likely impacts.

- Considerable work was done by the consultants to the Mine, EMM, in interviewing local residents and assessing their `perceived', `subjective' views - none of this material is included in the EIS.

- The number of workers employed can be disputed. At various stages in the EIS it talks of 1,300 employees, a table 5.1 in Appendix P shows a total of 1,300, but in the Executive Summary is a reference to 1,187 employees.

- The EIS claims there is no measurable impact on water. This is clearly untrue. The present landform west of Saddle ridge slopes substantially to the west, towards the Wollombi Brook. Rain which falls on this slope would normally find its way, via creeks, seasonal streams and underground aquifers into the Brook. When the area is subject to Open Cut mining, all water will fall into the pit. At the simple equation of 25mm of rain on 1 hectare = 1 megalitre of water, then if the 768 Hectares is mined, at the average annual rainfall of 600mm per annum, the potential is to lose at least 18,432 megalitres of runoff water per annum. This would make a total of over 313,000 megalitres over the projected life of the project. This number does not take account of the consequent loss of flows from unidentified underground aquifers that are in the area that will be impacted by these mines, neither does it take account of interrupted flows from the amended plan for Mount Thorley Mine. There is also the issue of the polluted water, mainly saline, which collects in unfilled pits of open cut mines. Clearly this problem will increase should approval be given to this project.

- This project cannot be considered in isolation. In this area of the Hunter Valley there are the Bulga underground and open cut mines to the South East, Mount Thorley and Warkworth Mine to the East, Hunter Valley operations to the North East and Wambo mine continuing around from North to North West. All of these mines create dust, which has a major immediate impact on residents. If a dust exceedance is recorded, it is very difficult to identify the culprit mine and no mine will take responsibility.

- Similarly all of these mines make noise and each blames the other for exceedances. Despite fairly sophisticated monitors being available, Warkworth Mine, operating as Mount Thorley does not have real time monitors in place in proper locations to measure noise and therefore adjust their operation to ensure compliance with limits. They seem to rely on complaints from residents, and then deny an exceedance. This is not surprising as their monitors are in the wrong place.

- The EIS Executive Summary states that the mine has very few issues of non-compliance with consent conditions. This does not equate with the call logs of complaints. Whilst numbers aren't available, residents own experience has allowed them to estimate that hundreds of complaints are made each year to the Mine and to Compliance Officers. These complaints are not trivial and very often noise exceedances are three and more times the consent limit.

- Dust presents other problems. On windy days thousands of hectares of exposed ground from SE to NW produce huge volumes of dust, much of it PM10 fine particulates. The Many millions of litres of diesel burned each year in the mines produce PM2.5 very fine particles. There are no safe levels of exposure to PM2.5 and PM 10 particles. Even the Dept of Planning's arbitrary limit is constantly exceeded and this limit allows for greater dust pollution than the NSW Dept of Health and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Consequently a high incidence of respiratory disease is reported neighbouring communities.

- Warkworth Sands Woodlands is a unique landform and its ecology is unique to the are. No amount of offsets can replace or replicate it. If mined the Warkworth Sands will disappear forever. As demonstrated during the Land & Environment Court hearing, the WS supports a plethora of endangered species of flora and substantial colonies of endangered fauna. Should the woodland be mined it is likely that the remnants of this flora and fauna would struggle to survive in new and different environments.

- Offsets - Again in the Land and Environment Court hearing, much was made of the fact that the mine was offering large offsets to the mined area. However, some of them are hundreds of kilometres away, near Ulan and Putty. Justice Preston found this very unsatisfactory as the offsets were not "like for like", ie the forests were different, both ecologically and in species of flora and fauna. In any event it was noted that these offsets already existed, so did nothing additional to improve ecological quality or diversity per se., but, the judge noted, like for like offsets should be just that, and close by so that, the local ecology could be somewhat maintained. Further, there is nothing in law that says these offsets will remain. Should a coal reserve be found below these areas there is nothing to prevent them from being mined. This demonstrates that the offset policy is little more than farcical.

- In the Warkworth Sands Woodlands and on Saddle Ridge are significant Aboriginal heritage sites, grinding grooves, middens, burial and bora grounds. These must be preserved to protect and preserve indigenous heritage. No coal sold overseas is worth the destruction of these important sites. This is not a specious claim, these sites have been identified for many years and many of the Wonnoruah people who live locally recognise and respect them.

- There are access issues relating to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road. If this road is closed, emergency vehicles will take a minimum of 8 minutes extra to travel the highways to these areas. In addition they will have to traverse considerable extra traffic which can lead to delays and its own emergency issues. In the last few years the area from Warkworth to Jerry Plains has been the site of a number of major vehicle crashes and fires, even an 8 minute delay in responding can mean that the situation becomes more critical. While the mine has offered a fire trail within their western boundary this will only allow access to the mine site and not be a reasonable emergency vehicle route.

- The visual impacts of an Open Cut mine do not have to be spelled out in detail: large piles of exposed rock crushed by blasting and excavation, huge lights at night to facilitate night operations, dust clouds following blasting and on windy days and the general `moonscape' left by a huge earthmoving operation. In its 2003 EIS Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine conceded that Saddle Ridge was an important visual barrier between residents to the west, including Bulga and Warkworth. Now they say it is of no consequence and removing Saddle Ridge will have minimal visual impact. Any of the residences in Bulga located higher than the creek bank will be looking directly into the mine and will be affected by the continuing workings. The mine proposes to plant screen trees - which would become effective as a visual barrier just about the time the mine finishes in 2031. Saddle Ridge MUST remain as a noise and visual protection for the village and surrounds.

- Since the Land & Environment Court found the project had no economic merit in 2012, the only thing that has changed is the price of coal which has since reduced. The natural consequence of this is: if the project was not economically sound then, it is even less so now!

- The economic benefit to Australia must also be questioned. Today 82% of mining profits are directed overseas and recently it has been demonstrated that companies have many ways of reducing their profits through international measures. Rio Tinto is a multinational and sends its profits overseas. It also is actively working to reduce its workforce through automation, with driverless trains, driverless trucks, huge investments into automated mining processes and the recent moves to reduce its contractor workforce.

- The social impact on residents of Bulga and surrounding districts is immense, as noted by Professor Albrecht in his evidence to the Land & Environment Court. Residents feel constant solastalgia, loss of sense of place and see that this project will substantially reduce their, quality of life, their property values, their ability to have their expected quiet enjoyment of their homes and the relaxed rural lifestyle that seemed guaranteed by the 2003 Deed.

- This lack of trust is exacerbated by the NSW Government's recent amendment to the Mining SEPP which makes the value of the resource the key consideration in assessing such projects, the same Government changing the rules relating to offsets and the Government's failure to enforce consent conditions on the existing mine. Residents say they have no faith that noise, dust and blasting limits will not be exceeded as the mine currently demonstrates it cannot (or will not) keep within imposed limits. If it is too noisy and too dusty when it is 7 kms away, how could one expect it to be less noisy and less dusty at a 2.6 km distance?

I would like to comment on the so called continuation ( extension) of this mine for a start this mine was rejected by the land and environment court but due to the arrogance of this mine in conjunction with the state government changed the law to suit this mine and over ride the courts dissition. Just a couple of points about this mine for some reason the nsw mineral council have been in the pocket of this mine with total disregard to the Bulga community the mineral council talk about jobs not one point about the next 20 or so years of noise , viabration from shots up to 2 a day 4 days a week,dust the mine cannot control the dust due to to much open country ,tip faces in which is out of the mines control.the lose of quality of life due to the above this mine is there 24/7 .lose of value of homes in and around this mine damage caused by this mine due to shots. The mine talks about money into the economy what about the small bisness in Bulga which will be hurt and also the residanets of Bulga add to the economy , we the residents of Bulga will not have a choice if this mine gets the go head we the EPA don't seem to care as complaints are never followed up or acted on and if we do see s fine it is so small amount it is a joke, as a employee of this mine I am in a loss loss situation because if it gets mocked back I loss my job if it goes ahead I loss my home and quality of life please stop this continuation.

I object to this proposal due to the threat posed on the fragile ecology and the community by extensive and excessive mining.

Further reasons why the proposal should be rejected:

- The NSW Land and Environment Court examined the proposal to mine this area in very great detail and rejected it as without merit. In its examination the Court allowed very great leniency to Rio Tinto in daily adducing more and more evidence in support of its application, even though all matters to be raised should have been submitted to all parties in the `discovery ` period before the case.


- Subsequently the company and the Government of NSW lodged an appeal with the NSW Supreme Court claiming a lack of fairness and a number of other procedural errors. In a unanimous decision, the three most senior judges in the Supreme Court found against them and dismissed the appeal.


- The EIS submitted in support of the application is a massive 14 volumes. This is written in response to a document called "the Secretary's Requirements" (previously known as DGR requirements). This document, issued by the NSW Dept. of Planning, was published on 22 May 2014. The 14 volumes of the EIS, purporting to answer the Secretary's Requirements was published on or before 13 June 2014. One would question how such a document could have been prepared in this time, properly addressing the matters in the Secretary's Requirements. In fact, the document does not properly address these requirements.


- In the EIS, Rio Tinto has included huge volumes of data and statistics from far and wide in the Hunter Valley and some local and relevant matters. Some of these statistics are quite demonstrably wrong and would lead one to assume that the writers were being very loose with the truth. One example can be found in Table 4.4 in Appendix P. The Company states that 23.8% of privately owned properties in Bulga are unoccupied. That is 37 houses. Of the 156 houses in the Bulga area, we know of 3 that are unoccupied, two are mine owned, one being fire damaged and uninhabitable for years, the other having been found to contain asbestos. The third house is not occupied full time as it is a deceased estate. However, the family do spend weekends there.

- Another statistic shows the demographic of miners employed at the site. It shows 30% live in the Singleton Shire and 17% live in Maitland. This figure must have been taken from a very limited survey of employees as other statistics show 25% live in Singleton Shire and 32% live in Maitland. The skewing of these statistics would then heavily influence subsequent figures showing the economic impact of the mine closing, etc. There are many other errors found on a close reading of the 14 volumes.


- The Managing Director of Rio Tinto Coal argues that 1,300 jobs are at risk. In the Executive Summary of the EIS it shows 1,187 jobs. Other information puts the figure at somewhat less than that. However, were the mining to cease in 2015 as claimed by the EIS (if current approval continues until 2012) some hundreds of jobs would still exist in care and maintenance and rehabilitation. It could be argued that Mr. Salisbury is trying to pressure the government by continuously repeating the 1,300 figure.


- In any event, one must ask what price a number of mining jobs over the 380 residents of Bulga and the other locals living in Warkworth, Long Point, Gouldsvillle, Broke, Fordwich and Milbrodale. These folk will have their lives made intolerable by the presence of the mine with the additional dust, noise, blast effects etc. These communities have seen their property values decline and, in some cases are unable to sell at any price.

- The population of Bulga grew by almost twice the National average between the 2006 and 2011 Census. Clearly people did consider the area a good place to live. It clearly was not the case, as is argued, that people are wanting to move to larger towns or cities. Very importantly - the growth was in no small part due to a sense of security felt by locals after the 2003 approval, when the Government required Rio Tinto to sign a Deed guaranteeing they preserve Saddle Ridge and other areas in perpetuity. However, Rio Tinto, in an incredible display of disdain for rules, never executed the requirements of the Deed and subsequently Minister Hazzard amended it, making it ineffectual.


- Many residents made life decisions based on the existence of the Deed, bought homes, built homes, induced families to move to the area or stay, or did not move when they could. Those families now feel particularly cheated. More so when Rio Tinto says they cannot be held responsible for the life decisions of others!


- In the Secretary's Requirements, specific mention is made of the concerns of Bulga residents and certain criteria are to be addressed. There are vague statements in the EIS about measures to address increased noise and dust. However, social impacts are not addressed at all. A Social Impact Management Plan is necessary under the terms of the Secretary's requirements to address the likely impacts.


- Considerable work was done by the consultants to the Mine, EMM, in interviewing local residents and assessing their `perceived', `subjective' views - none of this material is included in the EIS.


- The number of workers employed can be disputed. At various stages in the EIS it talks of 1,300 employees, a table 5.1 in Appendix P shows a total of 1,300, but in the Executive Summary is a reference to 1,187 employees.


- The EIS claims there is no measurable impact on water. This is clearly untrue. The present landform west of Saddle ridge slopes substantially to the west, towards the Wollombi Brook. Rain which falls on this slope would normally find its way, via creeks, seasonal streams and underground aquifers into the Brook. When the area is subject to Open Cut mining, all water will fall into the pit. At the simple equation of 25mm of rain on 1 hectare = 1 megalitre of water, then if the 768 Hectares is mined, at the average annual rainfall of 600mm per annum, the potential is to lose at least 18,432 megalitres of runoff water per annum. This would make a total of over 313,000 megalitres over the projected life of the project. This number does not take account of the consequent loss of flows from unidentified underground aquifers that are in the area that will be impacted by these mines, neither does it take account of interrupted flows from the amended plan for Mount Thorley Mine. There is also the issue of the polluted water, mainly saline, which collects in unfilled pits of open cut mines. Clearly this problem will increase should approval be given to this project.


- This project cannot be considered in isolation. In this area of the Hunter Valley there are the Bulga underground and open cut mines to the South East, Mount Thorley and Warkworth Mine to the East, Hunter Valley operations to the North East and Wambo mine continuing around from North to North West. All of these mines create dust, which has a major immediate impact on residents. If a dust exceedance is recorded, it is very difficult to identify the culprit mine and no mine will take responsibility.

- Similarly all of these mines make noise and each blames the other for exceedances. Despite fairly sophisticated monitors being available, Warkworth Mine, operating as Mount Thorley does not have real time monitors in place in proper locations to measure noise and therefore adjust their operation to ensure compliance with limits. They seem to rely on complaints from residents, and then deny an exceedance. This is not surprising as their monitors are in the wrong place.


- The EIS Executive Summary states that the mine has very few issues of non-compliance with consent conditions. This does not equate with the call logs of complaints. Whilst numbers aren't available, residents own experience has allowed them to estimate that hundreds of complaints are made each year to the Mine and to Compliance Officers. These complaints are not trivial and very often noise exceedances are three and more times the consent limit.

- Dust presents other problems. On windy days thousands of hectares of exposed ground from SE to NW produce huge volumes of dust, much of it PM10 fine particulates. The Many millions of litres of diesel burned each year in the mines produce PM2.5 very fine particles. There are no safe levels of exposure to PM2.5 and PM 10 particles. Even the Dept of Planning's arbitrary limit is constantly exceeded and this limit allows for greater dust pollution than the NSW Dept of Health and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Consequently a high incidence of respiratory disease is reported neighbouring communities.

- Warkworth Sands Woodlands is a unique landform and its ecology is unique to the are. No amount of offsets can replace or replicate it. If mined the Warkworth Sands will disappear forever. As demonstrated during the Land & Environment Court hearing, the WS supports a plethora of endangered species of flora and substantial colonies of endangered fauna. Should the woodland be mined it is likely that the remnants of this flora and fauna would struggle to survive in new and different environments.


- Offsets - Again in the Land and Environment Court hearing, much was made of the fact that the mine was offering large offsets to the mined area. However, some of them are hundreds of kilometres away, near Ulan and Putty. Justice Preston found this very unsatisfactory as the offsets were not "like for like", ie the forests were different, both ecologically and in species of flora and fauna. In any event it was noted that these offsets already existed, so did nothing additional to improve ecological quality or diversity per se., but, the judge noted, like for like offsets should be just that, and close by so that, the local ecology could be somewhat maintained. Further, there is nothing in law that says these offsets will remain. Should a coal reserve be found below these areas there is nothing to prevent them from being mined. This demonstrates that the offset policy is little more than farcical.


- In the Warkworth Sands Woodlands and on Saddle Ridge are significant Aboriginal heritage sites, grinding grooves, middens, burial and bora grounds. These must be preserved to protect and preserve indigenous heritage. No coal sold overseas is worth the destruction of these important sites. This is not a specious claim, these sites have been identified for many years and many of the Wonnoruah people who live locally recognise and respect them.


- There are access issues relating to the closure of Wallaby Scrub Road. If this road is closed, emergency vehicles will take a minimum of 8 minutes extra to travel the highways to these areas. In addition they will have to traverse considerable extra traffic which can lead to delays and its own emergency issues. In the last few years the area from Warkworth to Jerry Plains has been the site of a number of major vehicle crashes and fires, even an 8 minute delay in responding can mean that the situation becomes more critical. While the mine has offered a fire trail within their western boundary this will only allow access to the mine site and not be a reasonable emergency vehicle route.


- The visual impacts of an Open Cut mine do not have to be spelled out in detail: large piles of exposed rock crushed by blasting and excavation, huge lights at night to facilitate night operations, dust clouds following blasting and on windy days and the general `moonscape' left by a huge earthmoving operation. In its 2003 EIS Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine conceded that Saddle Ridge was an important visual barrier between residents to the west, including Bulga and Warkworth. Now they say it is of no consequence and removing Saddle Ridge will have minimal visual impact. Any of the residences in Bulga located higher than the creek bank will be looking directly into the mine and will be affected by the continuing workings. The mine proposes to plant screen trees - which would become effective as a visual barrier just about the time the mine finishes in 2031. Saddle Ridge MUST remain as a noise and visual protection for the village and surrounds.


- Since the Land & Environment Court found the project had no economic merit in 2012, the only thing that has changed is the price of coal which has since reduced. The natural consequence of this is: if the project was not economically sound then, it is even less so now!

- The economic benefit to Australia must also be questioned. Today 82% of mining profits are directed overseas and recently it has been demonstrated that companies have many ways of reducing their profits through international measures. Rio Tinto is a multinational and sends its profits overseas. It also is actively working to reduce its workforce through automation, with driverless trains, driverless trucks, huge investments into automated mining processes and the recent moves to reduce its contractor workforce.


- The social impact on residents of Bulga and surrounding districts is immense, as noted by Professor Albrecht in his evidence to the Land & Environment Court. Residents feel constant solastalgia, loss of sense of place and see that this project will substantially reduce their, quality of life, their property values, their ability to have their expected quiet enjoyment of their homes and the relaxed rural lifestyle that seemed guaranteed by the 2003 Deed.

- This lack of trust is exacerbated by the NSW Government's recent amendment to the Mining SEPP which makes the value of the resource the key consideration in assessing such projects, the same Government changing the rules relating to offsets and the Government's failure to enforce consent conditions on the existing mine. Residents say they have no faith that noise, dust and blasting limits will not be exceeded as the mine currently demonstrates it cannot (or will not) keep within imposed limits. If it is too noisy and too dusty when it is 7 kms away, how could one expect it to be less noisy and less dusty at a 2.6 km distance?

I have just recently taken on the role of General Manager Mount Thorley Warkworth which has given me the opportunity to meet with a number of stakeholders interested in the planning application for the continuation of MTW.

I have met with the majority of MTW employees and during these meetings many have raised concerns about security of employment. Their biggest fear being that there is limited opportunity in the local area if they lose their jobs.

I have also met with many local business owners. Their concerns are that the community is struggling with the downturn in the local economy and they believe that any further job loses will make a bad situation worse. They tell me that the deterioration in the local economy is directly linked to the job losses in the coal industry.

The fact is that without the approval for Mount Thorley and Warkworth the lively hood of all employees at MTW is at risk as are those of the employees of the businesses that supply services to the operation.

Most people I have interacted with tell me that the coal industry is an integral part of theHunter Valley and that historical it has co-existed with local communities and other industries and they see no reason why this can't continue.

MTW has been a part of that history for over 30 years and over those years has implemented practices and technology to better manage its impact. The approach of looking for further opportunity to reduce impact and working with local stakeholders will continue. MTW is focused every day on compliance with all required legislation and regulations.

In considering all of the information I truly believe that the continued operation of MTW, on balance, is the best thing for the Hunter Valley and all employees at MTW.

I am totally behind the approval for the warkworth extention

o The continuation of this mine will provide support for local jobs, futures for families, and growth in the community.

o I support the continuation of MTW because of the economic benefit for the local region and continued employment of 1300 local people.

I FEEL THE EXTENSION SHOULD GO AHEAD TO PROTECT THE JOBS AND THE SURROUNDING LOCAL ECONOMY. some OF THE PEOPLE HAVE WEORKED IN THE MINES FOR YEARS AND ARE HOLDING OUT TO GET MORE MONEY WHICH IS VERY HYPOCRITICAL. I HAVE 2 SONS WHO HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES TO WORK IN THE MINES TO SECURE THEIR FUTURE. THEPEOPLE INVOLVED KNEW THE MINES OWNED THE LAND AND WOULD WANT TO EXTEND.JOBS ARE JUST TOO HARD TO FIND .

My partner is employed by mining. He is nearly fifty years of age and is unlikely to be able to retrain for another industry at his age. His role depends on the continued operation of Warkworthband his income is vital for our young family.

I support the Mt Thorley Warkworth extension as I strongly believe we need this extension for our families and also to continue to support the growth of other industry and local busness as we have done in the pass.

Without the mines the businesses in the town and surrounding areas die too!

I am writing to urge a halt to any development by RIO TINTO in the Warkworth Sands Woodland near Bulga.

CSG is a very toxic industry and the government does not hold companies accountable for the long term clean up of contamination to NSW.

All woodlands ned to be protected to preserve biodiversity.

Your government should be investing in large scale solar technology for a pollution and carbon free future. If Germany can do it so can we.

Also , Rio Tinto is encouraging its own employees to write submissions to support their development. This is akin to insider trading.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Emonson

Our family relies on MTW for our income, without it we would be lost.

As an employee of the mines in the Hunter Valley. Personally believe that the mine should continue on for future generations of Australia. Closing down them down, I Believe will not only affect The workers but also their families, the community, The township of business that rely on mines within the Hunter Valley.

I have worked as an equipment operator at MTW since 2002 I'm 53 years old. My brother and his son in law also work at MTW. My son also works in the mining industry in the Hunter Valley. I depend on this industry for my lively hood to provide for my family and to help build wealth for my retirement in the future so as not to have to depend on government handouts, as do my 1300 work college's.

If the extension is not approved the future for my family and I, 1300 of my work mates, there families, all the businesses and there employees around the Hunter Valley that support MTW will all be affected. This will have a flow on affect for the local shops, schools, small businesses and so on.

The Hunter Valley and NSW economic future depend on the coal industry.

My husband works at MTW and our family relies on this extension bring approved. I was born and raised in singleton and moved away to other mining towns 10 years ago and moved back to the area 4 years ago in the hope we could raise our three girls here. Having seen first hand what mining has done for the area I would hate to see what it will become if the extension is rejected not just for our family but for so many. Please approve this extension to secure my families future.

Please approve the extension of the Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine to secure my brother-in-law's family's future. Don't put the complaints of a few ahead of the families of the mine and local communities