Warkworth Coal Mine Continuation

I am for the expansion of Mount Thorley Warkworth the impact this would have on not only the company but the wider community is catastrophic.
With the adjoining mine already cutting back positions has made a significant impact on those who directly and indirectly work for the mining industry in the valley we can't afford to have any more do the same thing.
Singleton and the surrounding towns have suffered from the recent closures and this does not stop here!!
The impact on family members of those who have lost there position/Job is alarming and I feel for those who have and are suffering from this economic downturn which has affected the mines in the valley.
the government and its royalties should inject these straight back into the community to help those who have suffered so far with thus said down turn..
In closing not granting the extension is such a significant impact on all those involved and I fully support this expansion!!!

I do not support Rio Tinto's current development application to expand the Warkworth Mine westwards towards Bulga village (Project).
I live in the inner west of Sydney. My extended family are from the Hunter Valley and I frequently visit the Hunter Valley, staying in Pokolbin while escaping Sydney for the weekend. The Hunter Valley is a beautiful part of NSW.
I have followed the Bulga community in the news with interest over the past few years. I have also visited Bulga and have met many Bulga residents. Their resilience and community spirit was warming and uplifting.
Proposal
The Project is almost identical to the proposed westward expansion that was rejected by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court in 2013 (a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal this year). The LEC undertook an extensive exercise in balancing all relevant matters and determined that the preferable decision was to disapprove the carrying out of the project. The Project fails to address key issues raised by Preston CJ in his judgment.
The only thing that has changed is the current legal framework.
The NSW Government has, over the past 2 years, made changes to the NSW planning and environment legislation which now:
1. prioritises economic considerations above environmental and social considerations in the assessment of mining projects; and
2. allows miners to clear native vegetation and provide weaker offsets that are not `like for like'.
The NSW Government has made these legislative changes to allow Rio Tinto to have their mine extension approved and give all miners more certainty. We have also seen a clear move by the NSW Government to have the PAC hold public hearings for all coal mine applications/extensions/ modifications, as a strategic move to remove merit appeal rights from communities. Unfortunately, Bulga's bold success in the Land and Environment Court saw the end of merit appeals for all mining proposals and communities. These communities are now powerless.
Enough is enough.
I do not support the Project for the following reasons:
1. Social impacts
If the Project is approved, the village of Bulga will not survive. The impacts of the Project on the lives of Bulga residents will be so severe they will not be able to stay in their homes. Social impacts from coal dust and noise cannot be avoided with the mine extending closer towards the village and with the removal of Saddleback Ridge.
Bulga is a 200 year old village and it will be destroyed. The Project is not suitable this close to an old and established village - it is the wrong proposal in the wrong place. The villages of Camberwell, Ravensworth and Warkworth have all been destroyed by other mines in the area and there is value for all of us in saving Bulga.
2. Ecology
The Project will result in the clearing of an endangered ecological community, the Warkworth Sands Woodland (WWS EEC). We should be protecting our biodiversity, not destroying it for coal. The WWS EEC is unique to this part of the Hunter Valley. The mine has failed to prove that this EEC can be either rehabilitated or moved and re-established. Until this can be proven, it should not be destroyed. It is the wrong proposal in the wrong place.
3. Economic analysis
Chief Justice Preston of the LEC determined that he was not satisfied that Rio Tinto's economic analysis supported the position that the economic benefits of the 2012 project outweighed the environmental, social and other costs.
I have read many articles written by economists that are critical of economic claims made by Rio Tinto. I believe Rio Tinto has sensationalised any anticipated loss it would incur in the event the Project was not approved. Rio Tinto's economic analysis should not be accepted unchallenged and on face value.
The Project should not be approved. It is the wrong proposal in the wrong location. The ecological and social impacts of the Project are not acceptable. There needs to be a point at which the NSW Government says "no, this project is not suitable for this area".

I wish to oppose the Warkworth Extension proposal, as currently submitted.
This is broadly the same as the last application which was rejected in both the NSW Land and Environment Court and the NSW Supreme Court.
If allowed to proceed, it will not only be doing so against the decisions of the NSW justice system, but will risk unacceptable damage to the biodiversity of the area, with attendant noise problems and damage to the community of Bulga.
Please uphold the integrity of the NSW judicial system and consider the environmental effects of this proposal.

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. As an ex-vet nurse I am particularly concerned about the biodiversity loss, impacts upon surface and ground water resources, and the significant 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. Although there are some differences in this new application, it does not address unacceptable outcomes already noted in legislative protection law.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, and important water resources, which puts human health in the region at risk. The proposal should be rejected.

I endorse unreservedly this submission by Lock the Gate:

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.

Barrie Griffiths
North East Forest Alliance Hunter Region.

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 Kirsty Kelly am writing this 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.

Yes this is copied and pasted but I could not have put it better myself and does not detract from the importance and intent of my personal submission.

Yours Sincerely

I am writing to register my objection to the approval of both the Warkworth (SSD 6464) & Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) continuation projects.
The Land & Environment court has already rejected the Warkworth extension.
As someone who grew up at Jerry's Plains & has seen the environmental degredation in the area it has been distressing & woeful.
The Hunter Valley has always had mines & farms coexist the unfettered expansion of mining has destroyed the rural community. Enough is enough.
This mine moves into a fragile & endangered ecology, this should be enough to stop the project. Let alone the increased load of surface & ground water resources, the impact on air quality & the impact on aboriginal cultural heritage.
There is a reduction in demand for coal, we do not need to be damaging our environmental heritage to produce a product with declining demand.

Hello

Coal mining is the backbone of NSW and is under undue external pressure.

We must continie to grow our resources as they are critical to the economic development of our state

Mark

The town needs this

I object to the Warkworth [SSD6464] and Mt Thorley [SSD6465] Continuation Projects when it is clear that both the local community and the Land and Environment Court have not accepted an increased coal mining capacity at a time when renewable energy, water conservation, food security and protection of our environment has never been so pressing.

Following are some of the reasons it should not proceed:
1. Biodiversity loss especially to the Endangered Warkworth Sands Woodland Ecological Community
2.Air quality loss from coal dust
3. Impacts on aboriginal cultural heritage sites
4. Danger to surface and ground water resources
5. increase in greenhouse gas emissions
6. Unacceptable noise impacts
7. Unacceptable social impacts

Our state has lost too much and put in danger too much of its struggling environment and knowing the increasing risk of wildfires, drought and violent storms everything needs to be done to protect our future, our health, our food security and real sustainable jobs into the future by leaving this land undamaged.

These proposals must be rejected as they are for short term gains for shareholders but not for the good of NSW and Australia.

I object to this development on the grounds that there will be even more destruction of valuable native vegetation that provides habitat for threatened species in the Hunter area.

I also object on the grounds that climate change is being triggered to an even greater extent with every tonne of extra coal that is extracted in the Hunter Valley.

The waste water from mining poisons the Hunter River when the mining companies are allowed to discharge after rain events, the heavy metals from mining then lie in the river bed and can react when exposed to air during dredging, thus poisoning fish and sea life for millennia.

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

Regional communities must not be subjected to undue pressure from government bureaucracy when clearly, in this case procedural fairness has been jettisoned to protect corporate mining interests, despite the people of Bulga having won this argument in the L&E court to protect their village from further mining impacts.

To ignore the following facts related to this mining proposal will expose the PAC process as flawed and lead the good people of Bulga and NSW to reject any and all NSW government decisions on mining approvals based on the perceptions of corruption:

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.

Dear Minister, PAC members and Department Assessing Officers;

I support the proposed continuation of the warkworth mine as I genuinely believe it is in public interest. No planning approval assessment is made without weighing and balancing matters in accordance with the Act. The EIS demonstrates that the project is indeed in the public interest and should be approved subject to conditions. MTW has a strong compliance record and employs a highly experience multi disciplinary team of experts to manage compliance with conditions of approval and strive for continuous improvement in operating practice.

On a more personal level, if the project is not approved my job is on the line. My husband and I have two young boys and we love living in singleton surrounded by family and friends. if I were to loose my job due to this continuation not being approved it would have a devasting impact on us. Singleton is a proud mining town and the downturn in the coal mining industry is already having a major impact on the community. how will the government, both local and state support more families out of work if this approval doesn't go ahead? It's not just the direct employees, it's the contractors, suppliers, local businesses, community groups who rely on donations from Coal & Allied, schools with flucuating student numbers as families move away to find work, the list goes on. The social and economic impacts would be far worse if the project is not approved than approved.

I acknowledge the project does present environmental impacts, and of particular concern are those impacts that affect near neighbours amenity. These potential impacts are well understood, studied and can be managed, mitigated and compensated for within the scope of government policies and legislation.

I support the proposal and look forward to a timely outcome in favour of the project for the wider public interest.

Regards
Trudie Larnach

I am writing to object to the approval of the Warkworth (SSD 6464) and the Mt Thorley (SSD 6465) Continuation Projects.

These two 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.

Additionally, the proposed projects will have significant climate change impacts, both through the mining process but more particularly through the burning of the coal dug up from the projects. Now is not the time to be approving additional coal mining projects.

These proposals have the potential to create long-term damage to threatened species, water, and human health in the region, as well as having wider climate change implications, and should be rejected.

Unseamly

This proposal would worsen the effects on Bulga residents for little benefit, economic or otherwise. The Executive Summary makes it clear, in point ES5.10 that there will be "no changes to the existing average MTW workforce", the proposal allowing current employment levels to be maintained. This accounts for the figure of 1187 but the figure 1307 is never explained nor is there any breakdown of how that figure was reached. An illusory workforce does not equate to any economic benefit.

The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) does not meet the secretary's requirements that "an assessment of the likely social impacts (including perceived impacts), paying particular attention to any impacts on Bulga village", as stated in SIA 2.1. Instead there is a page-after-page focus on mine employees and suppliers, accentuating this company's disdain for the local community. There are large numbers of complaints about noise as shown in SIA 3.1.5 but no concrete proposals to site any monitors around the new parts of the mine which are considerably closer to Bulga. Such complaints are then dismissed with risible statements that tweaking of current practice is all that is required.

The proposal will remove Saddleback Ridge which is a visual and sound barrier for Bulga. In their overview, Duncan Peake and Luke Stewart concede that there will be a "large number of residences significantly affected". This is then watered down in ES5.12 to state that "some residences may experience high visual amenity impacts", deliberately using vague terms like "some" and "may". Suspiciously, the consultations done with Bulga residents does not appear in the proposal.

There will be a high impact on threatened species and communities with 611 ha of native vegetation cleared, 72 ha of which will be in the Warkworth Sands Woodland, an endangered ecological community. There can be no effective like-for like environmental offsets for this unique habitat nor for the disappearance of the Bulga Bora Ground, a place of very high cultural significance to the local Aborigines.

The whole proposal relies on a smokescreen of words that do not actually address local concerns, swamped by a focus on employees and suppliers. Such contemptuous disregard is unseemly.

There are some questions that need to be asked concerning the approval of the proposed mine extension.
How honest is Rio Tinto? Do they really care about the 1300 jobs that is being promoted as a fundamental reason for the approval for this extension or is this another strategy to play on the emotions of those involved in the decision making process?

Rio Tinto at Mount Thorley Warkworth seemingly have an ongoing agenda regarding the workforce at the Singleton site. Over the past months, moral on the site has diminished to a stage where it is literally in the pits. The general perception on site is that the company is out to "get" those who they wish to get rid of. This may or may not be true but it is the perception on site.

The question is, will the 1300 jobs be secure if this extension is approved and in what form would that 1300 job number take?

Many mining operators seem to be adopting the strategy of employing trainee operators through labor hire companies. Rio Tinto has adopted this strategy at the MTW site. The reason for adopting this particular strategy is to cut costs. Trainee operators are paid at a fraction the cost of permanent employees (around $19.00 per hour) and are doing exactly the same work as those permanent employee's. Trainees are also not classed as role replacement in the case of possible redundancies to the permanent workforce. These Trainees are offered contracts of between 12 months and 2 years on traineeships with a supposed prospect of permanent employment at the end of the Traineeship. This offer of pernancy may or may not be true however there have been instances of trainees on other Rio Sites completing their time as trainees only to be told that they are no longer required on those sites.

Is this a policy that Rio would adopt at Mount Thorley Warkworth?

Of course they would deny any notion of this in view of the possibility that it may have an impact on the success of the application for the mining extension because of the save "the 1300 jobs" promotion that is being presented. However, the recent cases of harassment and bullying by some Rio supervisors at MTW that have been highlighted in the media suggests that anything is possible.

Will Rio maintain there interests in the Mount Thorley Warkworth site if this extension were to be approved?

Good question. There is speculation that this, and other Rio Coal interests may be for sale. Naturally, an approval for a mining extension that would extend the life of the mine for 20 or so years would make this site a far more valuable sale item than one that has only a limited life span.

The workers on site are clearly concerned about the outcome of this upcoming decision on the extension to the mine. It is true that it will greatly impact on the workers and the community in general if the application is rejected. However, what Rio will do regarding the structure of the workforce and whether the operating conditions and possible change of ownership of the site would continue as they presently exist if the extension is granted is really an open question. It is a question that should be asked before that decision is handed down and some absolute assurances given by Rio that they will actually honour their obligations to their workforce by maintaining job security for those presently employed

The extention of Warkworth is the difference between economic stability and unrest for my family, as a member of their team I know Riotinto is commited to the the environment and ensuring there impact is minimised. I have compassion for impacted communities but feel the operations are doing just the same if not more than other operations in the valley to reduce there impact, this extenstion is imperitive to the economics of the local and state community.

I submit that to engage in expansion of coal mining is quite ridiculous for two reason:

1. It will increase the rate of climate change. Surely humans are more intelligent than to experiment with the future of Earth. Apparently not.

2. It will further deplete Australia's biodiversity on which we all depend for our existence.

Clearly, it is folly to indulge in short term addiction to profits at the expense of our species. Further, our economy is put at risk by expanding coal mining at the expense of investing in renewable energy. For goodness sake: wise up!!

There are two reasons this coal mine should not be approved.

1. Earth can ill-affford increases in carbon dioxide emissions given the rate of climate change.

2. The coal mine will further deplete Australia's biodiversity, something on which we all depend for our existence.

To approve the mine would therefore be extreme folly.