Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

My submission is against this proposal. Just last year the community of Bulga in the Hunter Valley won their second court case against this mining giant Rio Tinto's open-cut coal mine. Their victory saved their village and the endangered Warkworth Sands Woodland.


Rio Tinto has ignored the community and the courts and re-lodged nearly the exact same mega-mine proposals and I cannot believe that right now the NSW government is considering giving them the green light.

The community said no and the courts said no. I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

Yours Sincerely

I support the expansion of Mt Thorley Warkworth for the benefit of the Community and also my family's future.

This is a submission from Friends of the Earth Australia against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects. We are a national, membership based community organisation.

We are disappointed that this issue has not been resolved and that the proponent will not accept previous decisions regarding this proposal.

The Planning and Environment Department will be fully aware that the NSW Land and Environment Court ruled in April 2013 against expanding the Warkworth coal mine. 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, they lost. Two superior NSW courts have now ruled that Rio's plan to expand the Warkworth coal mine fails on merit.

These rulings, combined with deep and sustained community opposition, should have resolved the matter. Yet 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 already been rejected by the NSW courts (MP 09_0202).

That the Planning Department has even accepted Rio Tinto's application is a failure of procedural fairness.

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.

My family and I support the Warkworth Continuation Project. As it is my livelihood and if I were to lose my job I would have almost likely have to sell our home.

Submission for Rio Tinto Warkworth Continuation Project

Application No. SSD 6464



Please find below my submission to the abovementioned application. My name is Andrew Upward and I have lived in Bulga all my life (36 years).

In 2013 the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of a previous application made by Rio Tinto. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must also be refused.

Rio Tinto is requesting approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". What Rio Tinto aren't stating is that they signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge, that it would not apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge area mined and that it would protect the village of Bulga. It was because of this agreement I purchased my property in Bulga in 2003. I had peace of mind knowing the Mine wasn't going to reach Saddle Ridge and my quiet lifestyle wasn't going to be jeopardised.

Rio Tinto Australia's website says that "Good community relations are as necessary for our business success as the effective management of our operations." Rio Tinto state time after time that they are community minded and care about the communities, however it seems this only happens if they make the quota of however many millions of money they need to make per year.

Rio Tinto also made this DA Application WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION with the people of Bulga. Rio Tinto met with community representatives 3 weeks before at the Community Consultative Committee, no advice was given on this proposed application even though it was well under way and ready to submit. The people that call Bulga home are going to be most impacted by this or any other expansion and yet Rio Tinto don't have the decency to hold a meeting to advise the people in the village on what's happening. What they did do is drop a fancy pamphlet in the mail notifying us of their application. Environmental Impact Statements that are required when making an application and the abovementioned pamphlets just don't get typed and printed over night, they take a couple of months to get produced and printed which proves they knew about the application when they met with the Community Consultative Committee. Rio Tinto only care about profit and not people.



Saddle Ridge
Saddle Ridge is a vital barrier between the Bulga village and the noise and dust of Warkworth Mine. In 2003 Rio Tinto signed a Deed of Agreement with the Government agreeing they would preserve this area and would never be mined.


Ecology
The Environmental Assessment Rio Tinto provided to support their application is appalling and full of lies. This extension will destroy an Endangered Ecological Community containing Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box forest vegetation.

The offset Rio Tinto propose is not `like for like' and should not be suggested. Saddle Ridge needs to be preserved in its own right.

Noise
Residents of Bulga are constantly complaining about noise coming from the Warkworth mine and Rio Tinto have been fined for exceeding noise limits. Last year alone, the mine received 800 noise complaints. No increase in noise levels is acceptable and more tight actions must be taken to lower existing noise levels from the Warkworth Mine. It is clear the mine cannot currently control the effects of noise so what hope have we got if they move closer? In the Environmental Impact Study submitted by the mine in support of their application, they have carefully selected noise data from one monitor that shows relative compliance and not data from other monitors that show constant excessive levels.

Air Quality
As a father of two children under 5, air quality is very important to me. Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents living in areas around open cut mines. Warkworth Mine has been fined for excessive dust and this will only get worse if the application is approved.

Jobs
Government must weigh up the benefit of jobs versus the cost to the community. People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without the constant noise, dust and visual impacts of mining.

Rio Tinto went on a big recruitment drive at their Warkworth Mine so they would have the man force ready to work when they got the approval they were expecting to extend their mine. So now for them to claim that they need this approval "to maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels" is upsetting. This is a scare tactic being used by Rio Tinto to their employees and also using it as a sympathy tactic for other people to feel sorry for their employees and support the expansion. This reason must not be the basis of mining into an agreed non-disturbance area.

Mines may provide jobs but if this is at the expense of the community's health associated with living near an open cut mine, then it is too big a price to pay.

All mines in the Hunter Valley have an end date, it comes part in parcel of working in the mines. The current end date for Warkworth mine is 2021, that is 8 year from now and gives employees plenty of time to find future employment.

It should also be stated that we have asked Rio Tinto to mine underground which they constantly refuse. The reason for this refusal is they won't make as much profit as they would if they open cut mined. Are they really looking out for their employees?

Visual Impact
The overburden removal and the ever increasing overburden dumps will be evident to the residents of Bulga who live on the more elevated properties. Further, the massive excavation into the eastern side of Saddle Ridge will have a major visual impact when viewing the Ridge from the east. The reinstatement and rehabilitation of the devastated Saddle Ridge will be impossible.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
The Aboriginal Cultural heritage in the expansion area must not be destroyed. Four out of seven artefacts remain from those identified in the earlier EA. With this expansion the remaining four will be destroyed. These artefacts were intending for preservation under the Deed of Agreement of 2003. This will not be honoured under this expansion.

Economic
No economic assessments in support of the project have been provided nor is their any evidence available to justify the statements of Rio Tinto that they must expand the mine to maintain its viability and jobs.

I believe Rio Tinto are now using a `bit by bit' approach which could continue for numerous years. Should the mine get approval for this application then the same argument will again be used by Rio Tinto in two years time to justify another expansion into Saddle Ridge and move closer to the village of Bulga. This will continue until they have mined the whole area that was rejected by the Land and Environment Court earlier this year.

I am asking you to take on board my submission and all submissions made by the residents of Bulga. I have worked hard to reach my goal of owning my own property and the idea that it can be ruined by Rio Tinto is heart breaking. If this expansion goes ahead, I would give up on my dream of owning a large property again anywhere, because nowhere is safe from the government approving mines for the sake of dollars.


Andrew Upward

Submission for Rio Tinto Warkworth Continuation Project

Application No. SSD 6464



Please find below my submission to the abovementioned application. My name is Belinda Upward, I have been a resident of Bulga for 6 years and I oppose the application.

In 2013 the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of a previous application made by Rio Tinto. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must also be refused.

Rio Tinto is requesting approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". What Rio Tinto aren't stating is that they signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge, that it would not apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge area mined and that it would protect the village of Bulga. Rio Tinto Australia's website says that "Good community relations are as necessary for our business success as the effective management of our operations." Rio Tinto state time after time that they are community minded and care about the communities, however it seems this only happens if they make the quota of however many millions of money they need to make per year.

Rio Tinto also made this DA Application WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION with the people of Bulga. Rio Tinto met with community representatives 3 weeks before at the Community Consultative Committee, no advice was given on this proposed application even though it was well under way and ready to submit. The people that call Bulga home are going to be most impacted by this or any other expansion and yet Rio Tinto don't have the decency to hold a meeting to advise the people in the village on what's happening. What they did do is drop a fancy pamphlet in the mail notifying us of their application. Environmental Impact Statements that are required when making an application and the abovementioned pamphlets just don't get typed and printed over night, they take a couple of months to get produced and printed which proves they knew about the application when they met with the Community Consultative Committee. Rio Tinto only care about profit and not people.




Saddle Ridge
Saddle Ridge is a vital barrier between the Bulga village and the noise and dust of Warkworth Mine. In 2003 Rio Tinto signed a Deed of Agreement with the Government agreeing they would preserve this area and would never be mined.

Ecology
The Environmental Assessment Rio Tinto provided to support their application is appalling and full of lies. This extension will destroy an Endangered Ecological Community containing Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland and Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted Gum-Grey Box forest vegetation.

The offset Rio Tinto propose is not `like for like' and should not be suggested. Saddle Ridge needs to be preserved in its own right.

Noise
Residents of Bulga are constantly complaining about noise coming from the Warkworth mine and Rio Tinto have been fined for exceeding noise limits. Last year alone, the mine received 800 noise complaints. No increase in noise levels is acceptable and more tight actions must be taken to lower existing noise levels from the Warkworth Mine. It is clear the mine cannot currently control the effects of noise so what hope have we got if they move closer? In the Environmental Impact Study submitted by the mine in support of their application, they have carefully selected noise data from one monitor that shows relative compliance and not data from other monitors that show constant excessive levels.

Air Quality
As a mother of two children under 5, air quality is very important to me. Air quality has a major impact on the health of residents living in areas around open cut mines. Warkworth Mine has been fined for excessive dust and this will only get worse if the application is approved.

Jobs
Government must weigh up the benefit of jobs versus the cost to the community. People have the right to live in quiet enjoyment without the constant noise, dust and visual impacts of mining.

Rio Tinto went on a big recruitment drive at their Warkworth Mine so they would have the man force ready to work when they got the approval they were expecting to extend their mine. So now for them to claim that they need this approval "to maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels" is upsetting. This is a scare tactic being used by Rio Tinto to their employees and also using it as a sympathy tactic for other people to feel sorry for their employees and support the expansion. This reason must not be the basis of mining into an agreed non-disturbance area.

Mines may provide jobs but if this is at the expense of the community's health associated with living near an open cut mine, then it is too big a price to pay.

All mines in the Hunter Valley have an end date, it comes part in parcel of working in the mines. The current end date for Warkworth mine is 2021, that is 8 years from now and gives employees plenty of time to find future employment.

It should also be stated that we have asked Rio Tinto to mine underground which they constantly refuse. The reason for this refusal is they won't make as much profit as they would if they open cut mined. Are they really looking out for their employees?

Visual Impact
The overburden removal and the ever increasing overburden dumps will be evident to the residents of Bulga who live on the more elevated properties. Further, the massive excavation into the eastern side of Saddle Ridge will have a major visual impact when viewing the Ridge from the east. The reinstatement and rehabilitation of the devastated Saddle Ridge will be impossible.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
The Aboriginal Cultural heritage in the expansion area must not be destroyed. Four out of seven artefacts remain from those identified in the earlier EA. With this expansion the remaining four will be destroyed. These artefacts were intending for preservation under the Deed of Agreement of 2003. This will not be honoured under this expansion.

Economic
No economic assessments in support of the project have been provided nor is their any evidence available to justify the statements of Rio Tinto that they must expand the mine to maintain its viability and jobs.

I believe Rio Tinto are now using a `bit by bit' approach which could continue for numerous years. Should the mine get approval for this application then the same argument will again be used by Rio Tinto in two years time to justify another expansion into Saddle Ridge and move closer to the village of Bulga. This will continue until they have mined the whole area that was rejected by the Land and Environment Court earlier this year.

I am asking you to take on board my submission and all submissions made by the residents of Bulga. This is our home and our community which we have worked hard to build and very proud of. Towns and communities like Bulga are becoming scarcer and scarcer and if this application is approved, Bulga may as well be taken off the map.


Belinda Upward

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

As my company provides support services to Warkworth Coal Mine in NSW, any restriction to the continuation of this operation will have a direct impact on our company and potentially my continued employment within our company.

I object to the Warkworth Continuation Project. As a resident of a mining-affected community, I am dismayed that this project, which has been confirmed in both the NSW Land and Env Court and the Supreme Court to be lacking in merit and not in the public interest, is again on exhibition. The people of Bulga and surrounding areas will suffer the effect of noise, particulate pollution and corresponding illness and morbidity. The "work-around" which has been brokered between the proponent and the Dept of Planning & Infrastructure (DOPI) to divide this application into parts and re-exhibit is symptomatic of systemic toxic cultural problems withing DOPI; the Dept and the mining corporations are too intimate for the DOPI to act in the public interest. This erodes public confidence in the planning system. This application should be rejected.

My family's future depends on this extension. Without it the local economy will crumble and small towns will not see any worthwhile growth.

This is a submission against both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects. These two projects (SSD 6464 and SSD 6465) are effectively the same project that has already been rejected by two NSW courts (MP 09_0202). I am shocked and dismayed that these applications were even accepted by the Planning Department.

The plan to expand Warkworth Mine is a failed plan - at long last it has been able to be acknowledged, through the Courts as well as common sense, that there is a cost to exploitation of our common wealth and that it must be accounted for. The cost of expansion of Warkworth Mine is far too great. It must be rejected.

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 fully support Mount Thorley Warwkworth submission.

Our family is dependant on the mine and would love to see it continue. We as a family are so thankful for what Rio Tinto Coal Australia does to support our community.

ACF (Shoalhaven) wishes to register its objection to approval of the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application that was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.

In brief, these proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.

I support MTW to continue operating at current production and employment levels.

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 am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.


I am soon to become a resident of Denman in the Hunter Valley and I feel the proposed projects will have significant environmental and social impacts, including but not limited to: biodiversity loss, air quality issues arising from coal dust, impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The projects will significantly impact upon the ecology of the Warkworth Sands Woodland Endangered Ecological Community.


The Warkworth Continuation Project proposes to mine the same area of land as the previous 2010 Warkworth Extension application. That 2010 application was dismissed by both the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court of NSW due to significant and unacceptable impacts on biological diversity, including on endangered ecological communities, noise impacts and social impacts. Although there are some differences in this new application, the broad scale impacts of the proposal remain the same.


These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water and human health in the region and should be rejected.