Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

We need to keep as many mining jobs as possible to have people employed to benefit the entire community, the state and the country.

I object to the extension of the mining proposal as I propose that the communities of the surrounding district will suffer.

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 of the residents have 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!

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.


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.
Your sincerely,
Gae Mulvogue

The continuation of mining within the Hunter is crucial to the economic health of the community. The upper Hunter towns supported by this industry will quickly become ghost towns should the closure of mines be forced. Apart from direct and indirect jobs, taxes and royalties, the mining industry also contributes to our local communities and infrastructure - this will all be put in jeopardy.

No industry will survive inconsistency in the approval process especially in a capital intensive industry such as mining. If the previously approved project is rejected, the mining industry as a whole will lose confidence in NSW.

The mining industry has to meet all regulatory requirements before getting approval for projects. Once this is established approval should be granted.

I believe keeping Mount Thorley Warkworth and the mining industry thriving is in the interest of the Hunter community. The mining industry not only brings financial gains to the area, but also attracts a diverse group of people to the community. I know several people who work at Mount Thorley Warkworth who care passionately about engaging in the local community. They dedicate their free time to local charities; attend community events; put their children into local schools and support local small business. The community would be at a great loss if these people were forced to move elsewhere for work. There is no denying that there has been a palpable shift in the mood of the Singleton community with recent layoffs due to a number of factors out of our control. It would be a great shame if we jeopardised the welfare of 1300 MTW employees by obstructing the one thing in our control - government approval.
In keeping my submission brief I have focussed on the personal but (as undoubtedly covered in other more erudite submissions) there is a strong business case for the approval of the MTW extension. Coal and Allied rely on the full time operation of 3 sites across the Hunter Valley, and if this extension is not granted it will greatly affect the viability of these operations. It will also cast doubt on future investment in the area, not just from Rio Tinto but across the industry.

i support this

It is critical the continuation is approved to protect 1,300+ employees & contractors as well as the countless local businesses that supply the mine

Bulga must be protected from the predatory Rio Tinto.

Our environment is too fragile and will never be rehabilitated by mining companies.

We will lose too much flora and fauna FOREVER.
Mining contributes heavily to global warming.
Mines will become deserts and water will be contaminated,

We need to save the environment for future generations. It's time to stop the madness of dig and destroy. We see the examples in the USA; why do we want to follow in these foots steps?

We need to enhance clean, renewable energy, not continue on a path that is detrimental to everyone's health.

I support the extension of the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine as I feel the businesses of Singleton, the Hunter Valley and surrounding areas highly depend on the mining industry.

I support the extension of the mine and continued employment of hundreds of people

I support the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine extension because I think that 1300 people losing their jobs will devastate the commercial interest in Singleton, the Hunter Valley and beyond.

I want the extension for Mount Thorley Warkworth mine to be approved as I have family and friends who are employed at the mine and I don't want them to lose their jobs.

As residents of the Hunter Valley we support the Bulga community and would like to lodge a submission objecting to the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects:

1. Two superior NSW courts have ruled that Rio Tinto's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.
- Judge Preston in the NSW Land and Environment Court April 2013 overtuned the approval of the Warkworth coal mine on the basis that expanding the Warkworth coal mine would cause the NSW public more harm than good and that the information used by Rio Tinto and NSW Planning in support of the project was faulty.
- Rio Tinto and the NSW Government lost their subsequent appeal in the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal).

2. Rio Tinto' s resubmission of their mining application is devious. The two projects now submitted (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are for all purposes the same project that was rejected by two NSW courts.

We support the Bulga people that believe this should be the end of the project.
It is unacceptable that the Planning Department allowed the latest Rio Tinto's application. This constitutes a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the process. We thus can have no faith this is in any way fair and rigorous process.

We call on the Planning Department to respect the decisions of the NSW Land and Environment Court, and the NSW Supreme Court (Court of Appeal), and reject these applications.

I want the Mt Thorley Warkworth mine extension to be approved because I think the Singleton community and further afield rely on the mining industry for employment. Too many mines are laying off people because of the downturn in the industry so MTW, and it's 1300 employees, is a mine which could support the communities through these hard times.

I object to the proposal because it does not differ in any significant way from previous applications that were rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court.
It is notable that documentation in support of the application predates the Secretary's Requirements and therefore cannot respond to them. I support the view of Bulga residents that the EIS does not adequately deal with impacts on that community and that proposed job numbers have been overstated.
Significantly, cumulate impacts of mining developments have not been adequately considered in the current proposal, especially:
* the volume of water used and the quality of effluent
* the impacts of fine particulate matter.
I believe the weight of evidence shows that this proposal would not benefit the broader community and would have unreasonable impacts on residents of Bulga.

I support the application

Members and supporters of the Northern Beaches Greens are very concerned about the perverse process designed to grant approval to this destructive coal mine, which obviously favours the mining corporation, due to it's far greater ability to exhaust the resources of a small community.So 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.

WE need to support or fellow workers since you don't know when it could be your mine facing the same thing

As a resident of the Hunter Valley I am lodging a submission objecting to the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.
1.To approve yet another expansion in coal mining in the current economic situation of falling coal prices undermines the already dubious economic and environmental viability of existing projects
2.This project has already been overtuned by two superior NSW courts that ruled that Rio Tinto's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.
3. For Rio Tinto to resubmit what is essentially the same project already rejected by two NSW Courts is a farce and an insult to the judicial system and makes a mockery of the rule of law which is a fundamental element of our democracy.
4. The endangered Warkworth sands and prior mining offset area must be protected.
5. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that we must cease the broadscale clearing of native forests and the mining of fossil fuels that hastens the destructive process of global warming

I support the Bulga people, this should be the end of this project, communities need to have certainty and faith in the planning process.

It is unacceptable that the Planning Department allowed the latest Rio Tinto's application. This constitutes a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a farce of the process. We thus can have no faith this is in any way fair and rigorous process.

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

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

In April 2013 The New South Wales Land and Environment Court ruled 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 incorrect, and he overturned the approval.

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

The Planning Department's acceptance of Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness, and makes a mockery 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. We have no faith in this process when it is so obviously biased in favor of Rio Tinto.

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.

Im a new employee in the mining industry and love the opportunity this position has given me. Its great to go to work each day knowing that it is for a purpose not just for me and my family but the thousands of other families in the hunter valley.., without MTW everybody is affected..... my family, your family, thelittle guy around the corner as well as his employees and their families the list goes on....