Whitehaven will provide more jobs for the community

This is a small farming community
The impact mines have on these areas is vast and destructive

* Mining will cause alterations to, and lowering of, groundwater aquifers
and associated groundwater pressures. This will have a very serious
adverse effect on adjacent existing groundwater licences and present
an unacceptable risk to the economic viability of existing adjacent
irrigation farms.
* The proposed rail spur across the Namoi River Floodplain is a
totally unacceptable cost. This will cause major alterations to the
direction of floodwater flows, and impede the flows of floodwaters.
* The large area this mine requires for access to 179 Mt of ROM coal
reserves is an unacceptable and an irreversible cost on the landscape
and the environment in this region.
* Construction of 10 water supply bores and use of up to 396 ML/year
of groundwater, is not acceptable because it further reduces the
groundwater reserves of the Upper Namoi catchment - and the Murray
Darling Basin for an unacceptable purpose.
* Pump construction and pumping on the east bank of the Namoi River to
extract up to 1,752 ML/year of surface water is not acceptable, nor a
responsible use of water, depleting the upper Namoi surface waters of
the Murray Darling Basin.
* Construction and operation of a coal handling and preparation plant,
and a train load-out facility is unacceptable.
* Unacceptable impacts from general noise, dust, blasting, surface
water and groundwater losses, night lighting, flooding changes and
visual impacts.
* The haulage to the site coal from other Whitehaven operations for
processing will further cause adverse impacts.

Reference by the IPC to the recently published findings of a Senate
Inquiry into 'Adequacy of the regulatory framework governing water use
by the extractive industry". will indicate that this EIS application
does not meet many of its recommendations.

The EIS Summary 5.11 Conclusion records the statement that, on balance of
the predicted impacts and benefits, approval of the Project is in the
public interest.
This statement is patently wrong. It is not in the public interest to
exacerbate global warming. It is imperative to keep the warming as low
as possible. This entails the rapid shift from fossil fuels to
renewable energy. The recent IPCC report does still give a 12 year
window for a radical fundamental structural change in production and
consumption of energy to avert worst case scenarios for the future.
State and Federal bureaucracies have a responsibility to act to the
fullest extent of existing legislation while the public arouses the
Governments to effective action.
The Executive Summary Conclusion that approving more coal mining and
burning is in the public interest becomes a self-evident fact that the
assessment is faulty. It must be rejected.
I strongly object to this proposed Mine Extension.

Apart from the interruption of the mine on the land, the big issue
relating to mining and burning coal is the impact on oceans that is
rarely discussed. Over the past 5 decades the acidity of the oceans
worldwide is on average 32% higher. This is a significant threat to
life in the oceans and starting by destroying the food chain based on
phytoplankton and krill which is vulnerable to the acidity. If new
coal mines continue to be developed, it demonstrates that those who
have the power to allow them are not providing their duty of care to
the population and to the life support systems of the planet that
sustains us all. New technologies are advancing quickly and
alternative forms of energy are becoming cheaper every year. Under no
circumstances must there be new coal mines developed anywhere in the
world and Australia especially can provide those alternatives.

The much larger mine footprint will a mean concomitant increase in
impacts from noise, dust, blasting, surface water and groundwater
losses, night lighting, flooding changes and visual impacts. These are
not compatible with environmental sustainability nor with the health
and well-being of residents.

I object to the Vickery Extension Project...

I object strongly to this proposal .
It is a totally inappropriate development .

I object to this proposal in the strongest terms.

I object to this proposal because of the impacts it will have on the
local environment, local farmers, and the global environment (via
emissions of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere).