Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

The economic benefits in the local area and the state are huge in terms of continued employment and tax revenues. Without mining Australia would not be in the strong economic position it is in.

The mine is already operating and the mine was there before most of the objectors.

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

This project was deemed by the L&E Court t in 2012 to have no economic merit. Since then the price of the coal resource has gone down. Therefore on the industry economic argument alone this project should be rejected.

Any National economic benefit must be questioned, with 82% of mining profits being directed overseas and international mining companies becoming very clever at disguising their profits.

Arguments for large-scale mining projects to be allowed on the basis that they contribute to local jobs and economies are shallow and short-sighted for the following reasons:
Firstly, such an argument creates the allusion that mining is a sustainable and long-term activity. It is not - it is unsustainable and finite and it is irresponsible and immoral to promote otherwise!
Secondly, large mining activities can dislocate, transform or destroy existing sustainable local activities that have invested in the areas for the long-term.
Thirdly, the impact on the local communities is immense and must be part of the economic evaluation of the proposal. The community sense of dislocation, solastalgia and helplessness and impacts on health and well-being are well documented. But the social costs are diffuse and cumulative. It is difficult to quantify the impact on individuals, families and communities, yet these costs are very real consequences of these proposals and must be part of any credible economic appraisal. The arrogance of the proposal is demonstrated by the fact that there is not even a Social Impact Management Plan!
Fourthly, the environmental costs. The identification of impacts on water are inadequate. Without knowledge of thethe aquifers how can impacts by If this project is allowed to go ahead it will be an overt example of privatising the profits (and shipping them offshore) and socialising the costs (and keeping them at home). In what sense can this represent good planning or good governance? It is certainly NOT in the community's best long-term interests!

I support the extension of the workable land on the MTW lease. A rejection of this proposed extension would devastate the industry, the manufacturing and technical serviced that depend on its survival and the entire community.

I support the Warkworth Continuation Project.

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.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

As a local resident with a partner in the industry, i feel that the expansion being rejected will have a very negative outcome for not just our family but the town of Singleton itself. Property prices will fall and local businesses will close down because people will be forced to move away due to no employment here. We need the expansion to go ahead to keep people in Singleton and the surrounding areas.

I support the MTW project. Having lived in the Hunter Valley my whole life, mining and agriculture has been an integral part of Valley life. The project will continue to support local jobs and local families.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

This 'new' application is not materially different from the proposals that have preceded it - it is a resubmission of a rejected proposal and should be treated as such by the Department and the Government.

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

We need to keep this project going to support the 1300 local jobs. MTW also inject millions into the local economy and support local community projects. Without this support many people WILL miss out.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

**I may have already made a submission before, however I saw a new link to this Proposal and wanted to make sure I lodged a submission. If this is a duplicate, please disregard this submission.

As an employee of RTCA at HVO I recognize mining's significant contribution to the local economy and believe it to be an important factor in the sustainable growth of the town and surrounding areas. I support the continuation of the MTW mine site and would welcome RTCA as an important partner in the valley. In my opinion, RTCA is a responsible operator in the valley and should be recognized and rewarded as such.

This is my submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

History: The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications. To do anything else leaves the Department open to justified criticism and perhaps even speculation of corruption, given the chain of events and the Department's failure to uphold due process and decisions by the courts.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would do the NSW public more harm than good. Judge Preston found that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was wrong, and he overturned the approval.

When Rio Tinto and the NSW Government appealed that decision to the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

The Bulga people and their many supporters justly assumed that this would be the end of the project. Instead, Rio Tinto have simply resubmitted their mining application. It has been split in two, and the name updated, but these two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the very process you are now asking us, the public, to participate in. We are being asked to make submissions on a project that has already been through this very same assessment process and failed - only to be resubmitted. We are being asked to submit to a process overseen by a Department that is clearly working closely with the proponent to get the project approved, and which got the decision wrong the first time around. There can be no faith in this process.

The Department must respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

The environmental impacts and offsets of proposed extension are well above industry standards.

There are tangible economic benefits to the local communities and businesses. Without the approval for extension, these communities and businesses/suppliers will suffer significant loses.

The welfare and livelihoods of 1300 employees and their families are reliant on MTW.

The strength of Coal & Allied is partly reliant on all of its three operations being in close proximity. Loss of one site makes much harder for other two to operate efficiently. Further impacts to their mining operations, their employees and families and suppliers will follow if MTW does not receive approval for extension.

We have a property in Merriwa and house in Sydney and for the past 25 years have driven on an almost weekly basis between the two. In that time, the glorious resource being the Hunter Valley has been corroded by ill thought out mega mines. Bulga is a wonderful community that provides a base for self sustaining agriculture. The people of Bulga have expended their hard earned money buying their homes on the basis of the tranquil environment and to contribute to an agricultural industry. The Government ought to protect their rights to maintain their healthy community. The duty of the Govt must be to protect it's ordinary citizens first. Rio was formerly an Australian co. but is now a large global country that has as it's core the premise that it must maximize its return to its shareholders, a majority of whom are not Australian citizens. PLEASE DO NOT PERMIT THEM TO EXPAND ANY FURTHER PLEASE>

There are too many families lives at stake not to support the application.

I have worked in the Coal Industry for 26 years, 25 at MTW which has provided me with an income to help raise my family and also support local business not only in the Singleton area but in the lower Hunter as well. I have family members and friends who work in the industries that rely on the coal industry to keep the work coming through their doors to remain viable and those businesses are struggling to keep staff due to the down turn in the coal industry. If MTW were to scale down or even close because the extension was not approved the people in the Hunter Valley as a whole would struggle even more in a market that is already seeing employment opportunities deminish.Lets hope that MTW can continue to help provide opportunity for the Hunter Valley to flurish into the future.

I support the notion to extend MTWs mining life.
This site houses so much potential, not only for productions sake, but for each of its employees and contractors. It has a number of business' within the surrounding areas which rely heavily on it to survive. This extension needs to get passed for the sake of Singleton/Muswellbrook areas.