Bowdens Silver

I dont believe the amendment regarding water use by the mine issue addresses the original objection- the amendment is unacceptable

The other issues originally objected to- noise, lead pollution, and effect on value of properties -have not been addressed in the amendment.

Please refer to the attachment

The Bowdens submission and water report appears flawed and cannot be relied upon for reasons set out in the attached report prepared by an independent environmental auditor. This report was prepared in the short time available for submissions. Further work by this and other experts would no doubt reveal more serious concerns with the project.
The short exhibition and submission process will not ensure a balanced evaluation of Bowdens' amendments and claims of negligible impact.
The availability of water is fundamental to the project's viability and is a critical ongoing risk to the surrounding and downstream lands, farms, communities and environment. An exhibition period of only 2 weeks is far too short to evaluate and respond to a brand new report that miraculously confirms 'hey, actually all the water we need is available locally after all and moreover there are only negligible impacts of us taking it'! How can this be credible? Bowdens have submitted one view. They have not submitted much of a sensitivity analysis or differing views on consequences if this single report is wrong or actual circumstances are worse than forecast. For example, what would have been all the consequences had they taken their water needs (increased by a reasonable safety margin) before and during the recent 2 year drought and also for that 2 years hypothetically extended for say another 2 years. The exhibition process should be extended to allow other professional and independent analysis to be performed. Furthermore, the Department of Planning should rigorously audit the accuracy of the underlying assumptions and conclusions of the Bowdens report, assess how realistic they are in the actual circumstances of the area and in particular fully take into account worst case scenarios of drought that are becoming more the norm. A couple of good rain years may improve some averages and some short term looking out the window observations. There are, however, very recent horror stories and photos of the impact of drought and subsequent fires to the community in the immediate and wider area. The mine should not proceed as the risk to water and the consequences of getting it wrong are too great.

In regard to the above project I would like to object about the water retention on site, the building of the huge dam which will contain hazardous chemicals that will be stored
on site, this is contrary to the original submission. This storage also can be a danger to the local creek and river systems as well local pasture if any water escapes from the storage dam.
Not only are they planning this water storage dam they are also planning a huge bore of somewhere between 300-400 mt. deep which place it into the large aquifer within the artesian basin which will probably take decades to replace if ever.
The fact that silver mining requires the use of cyanide for the silver to be extracted can also be fraught with danger to humans and animals if the slightest accident because
of it's hazardous nature.
Finally the fact that Bowden's refuse to rehabilitate the whole site from the open cut mine to the hazardous tailings dam is nothing short of environmental vandalism, as a lot of the old open cut mine within our area is being or has been remediated and this just shows that they are not really interested in the local community of LUE

Running Stream Water Users Association was formed in response to concern about the negative impact of mining on water resources. We are extremely concerned about the negative impacts this mine, if it goes ahead, will have on the water resources of the area.
Right from the start this mine proposal has been dogged by the lack of sufficient water resources, with two attempts (that we are aware of) to source water from elsewhere: the original owners, Kingsgate contemplated trucking the ore elsewhere for processing, and Bowdens in their DA submission proposed a pipeline from the Ulan and Moolarben mines. To propose such an expensive solution indicates Bowdens were well aware there was insufficient water available on site. Conditions have not changed so the question has to be asked how they now think there is sufficient water.
It seems Bowdens have achieved the right numbers on water availability either by using inaccurate water data or excluding relevant data.
The amendment refers to 673ml annual rainfall for the mine area, whereas the BOM gives 614ml/a for Lue. Bowdens refer to annual rainfalls for Mudgee (656ml/a) and Rylstone (635ml/a), but this is misleading as it is well known by locals that Lue lies in a rainshadow and receives considerably less. Data for the years 1888 and 2019 is missing. These were the two driest years on record in the area. One asks why is this data missing? Furthermore, nowhere is there discussion of impact of reduced rainfall due to climate change.
Australia’s climate variability is well recognised: in their modelling Bowdens allow for highs of 30% above average but only allow for lows of 14% below average. This is ludicrous. Any landholder who keeps rainfall records knows that dry years can go as low as 50% below average.
Bowdens’ original EIS, when water was going to be piped from elsewhere, included a table showing the impact of the mine on downstream catchments. Despite this significant amendment of now sourcing all water on site, there has been no change to this table. One does not have to be an expert to realise this is incorrect.
Another major concern with this proposed mine is the impact of acid mine drainage. Nowhere is this issue addressed, either in the original EIS or this amendment. Acid mine drainage has the potential to leach heavy metals into Lawson Creek and this could impact fauna and flora along the creek for at least 20 km over many decades, thereby endangering the Putta Bucca Wetlands on the outskirts of Mudgee.

Thirty million tonnes of sulphide ore is planned to be mined. The EIS notes on pp. 8–16 that pyrite (iron sulphide) is the most wide-spread sulphide material found. Fig 10 of the leachate columns shows that the pH of the leachate of one sample was consistently pH 3 or less (i.e. quite acidic). The assessment by Bowden Silver thus fails to show that acid mine drainage will not occur. It has occurred with every other sulphide mine. It will occur here also.
We need to be shown the design of the waste rock dump to see exactly how air and water will be sealed off from entering in the long term.
We need to know the long-term security of the tailings dam, with multiple redundancies to ensure it will not collapse (as has happened at Clarence Colliery).
There needs to be a higher bond on the company for long-term measurement of acid mine drainage and heavy metals and a serious fund to treat this, possibly for decades.
Bowdens have failed to discuss any of these issues. All will have substantial cost and the community should not have to pay the cost.
Yet another concern is the relocation of the powerline. Moving the line a mere 100 metres from the original proposed route does not address any of the objections made previously. The power line will still have an enormous impact on the visual amenity of the region which is a major tourist destination. Bowdens’ statement that only four landholders are affected is simply wrong.
The power line realignment will result in the removal of Box Gum Woodland, a threatened ecological community, of which only 5% remains in the Central West, thus making every hectare precious. We cannot afford to lose any more.
This submission is written in haste because of the incredibly short timeframe – a mere two weeks – allowed for community response. We therefore do not have time to properly reference the points we make. However, we are aware of experts in the field who will be submitting detailed referenced submissions which will corroborate the points made here.
Yours sincerely

Fiona Sim (President)
on behalf of Running Stream Water Users Association

A mine must have a secure water supply to operate. A cobbled together collection of rainfall and runoff, harvestable rights, creek water and bore water is not a secure water supply. This mine must be assessed as unviable and the application refused.
Bowdens have said for many years that they have enough water licenses to supply their mine site and keep the water within the small mine site area. Well… they have access to almost half the water in the state via the aquifers which lie under their site. These licenses were not secured prior to the EIS, as we were led to believe, and are not confirmed as they are in a recent release by the department. There is no evidence that Bowdens hold these licenses or entitlements and they do not have any water approvals to pump this water.
There are reports and evidence to support the conclusion that Bowdens will take water at the expense of other users. In fact they say themselves that other water users will be protected by the law. Do we presume that means they will happily pay the fines to the regulator when they pump more water than they should. Why should the regulator or the NSW Government be required to police these invaders? Bowdens might as well, like Putin, send the tanks in to destroy Lue. It will be the same end result.

I am lodging this submission, as I strongly object to Bowden's development of a lead, zinc and silver mine and associated infrastructure.

I am a landholder and live downstream of the proposed lead, zinc and silver mine near Lue. Bowdens proposal to source all water for this mine directly from our catchment area is outrageous and cannot be approved. The detrimental effects of extracting water from our catchment area will negatively impact directly on the Lawson Creek - identified as already seriously stressed in the NSW Stressed River Assessments - and our environment downstream of this project, including Mudgee, NSW. The transfer of water licences from further down the Macquarie and Sydney Basin catchments is corrupt and is taking unfair advantage of a system designed to protect our waterways.

Furthermore, this mine which aims to extract ore from our environment in an open cut mine is exposing many local families to poisonous substances such as lead. All to benefit the greedy pockets of individuals. This must not be allowed to happen.

Transmission Line Relocation

This new proposal is not much different to the original proposal. Moving the line a mere 100metres from the original proposed route does not ameliorate any of the objections made previously some of which I have reproduced below

The power line will still have an enormous impact of the visual amenity of the region which is a major tourist destination. Bowden’s statement that only four landholders are affected is simply wrong. Many properties have wonderful views which will be impacted by the appearance of the powerline on the ridge. Moving the line 100m makes virtually no difference to the negative visual impact.

The realignment will result in the removal of Box Gum Woodland, a threatened ecological community of which only 5% remains in the Central West, thus making every hectare precious. We cannot afford to lose any more.

Once again cumulative impact on a range of issues has been ignored. These include the above mentioned endangered ecological community, aboriginal cultural heritage and loss of habitat (eg hollow bearing trees affecting Barking Owls and Greater Broad Nosed Bat, and koala habitat). Cumulative impact is a serious issue that is never addressed in each single application but results in continuing loss of habitat of a variety of endangered species. This must be properly addressed.

I am a Mudgee resident and I write in support of Bowdens Silver SSD-5765 EXH-39437454. My reasons for supporting the proposed development are set out below.
1. The removal from the project description of the proposed water supply pipeline on the basis of the updated on-site water management and supply strategy will significantly reduce disturbance to land and minimise biodiversity and heritage impacts.
2. The proposed increased recycling of water through the process circuit and Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) management will support the proponent's commitment to "no competition for water with local agriculture and no impact on environmental flows" and its paramount commitment to protection of Lawson Creek from impacts associated with the proposed development.
3. The proposed development's water management and TSF design has been subject to extensive and rigorous technical scrutiny and peer reviews.
4. The proposed realignment of the 500kV power line, bringing it closer to the proposed mine site, will result in improved visual amenity for landholders to the west and southwest of the proposed mine site, and reduce the number of towers required.
5. Approval of the proposed development will be a significant diversification to the regional economy which is currently focussed on fossil fuels.
6. The silver and zinc produced by the proposed development will form an essential raw material critically required to ensure the viability and efficiency of renewable energy technologies leading to reducing global carbon emissions and global warming.
All of the above demonstrate the proponent's continuing commitment to protecting the environment to the greatest extent possible, and to ensuring that community values and amenity are protected to the greatest extent possible.

Lue does not have enough water to allow for a mining operation like Bowdens mine is planing to operate in its new amendment.

With regular blasting and mine operations so close to the township of Lue and surrounding, residents will be subjected to lead contamination through dust in the water.

This lead contamination is proven to have a wide variety of negative medical impacts, especially in young children.

220407. Bowdens Ammendment.Water

These are significant amendments for which there has been totally inadequate community consultation and the timeframe for comment – a mere two weeks – is far too short and places even more stress on the community.

There is not enough water for this mine. This was recognised at the beginning hence the original proposal to pipe water from the Ulan & Moolarben mines. The onsite water availability has not magically increased just because the pipeline cannot be built.

The independent review of the data used for the water modelling has found some serious mistakes such as:
• They have used an average of combined data from Mudgee and Rylstone when it is well known that Lue is in a rain shadow and has less rainfall than either of those two places
• They have conveniently left out the driest years in their data
• Australia’s climate variability is well recognised: in their modelling they allow for highs of 30% above average but only allow for lows of 14% below average. This is ludicrous. Any landholder who keeps rainfall records know that dry years can go as low as 50% below average.

The conclusion that there is negligible impact on downstream water users is wrong. Any loss of water in dry times is critical.

Bowdens original EIS, when water was going to be piped from elsewhere, had a table showing impact of the mine on downstream catchments. Despite this significant amendment of now sourcing all water on site, there has been no change to this table. One does not have to be an expert to realise this is plain incorrect and very misleading.

I am aware there will be an independent critique of the water assessment and water modelling submitted but the serious time constraints mean this critique is not yet available for the community to access and reference. Therefore I refer you to that submission for all the technical details that clearly demonstrate there is not enough water for this mining project.

This project cannot go ahead.

The Amendment made by Bowdens Silver to allow 100% of water needed for mining operations taken from within the mine site is irrational, allowing for devastating adverse long term effects to the entire Lue area and surrounds. It is unjustifiable that no major effects will be made to all residents and landowners within the area. Lue area and surrounds does not have enough water to allow for a mining operation like Bowdens to operate alongside the already existing businesses.
Lawson Creek is already listed in the NSW Stressed Rivers assessment, in the most stressed Category (S1) with both high environmental stress and high extraction rate. It is already evident that Lawsons creek, more often that not, subsides to a series of small water holes during most summer months. A major operation like Bowdens will see Lawsons Creek empty for the foreseeable future.
All residents within the Lue Area rely on a secure water source through rain catchment and privately owned bores. With both jeopardised by Bowdens planned operations, no one would be able to survive in the area.
With regular blasting and mine operations so close to the township of Lue and surrounding residents, rain Catchment within the area will be subjected to lead contamination through Dust sediment within water catchment tanks and guttering. This lead contamination is proven to have a wide variety of negative medical impacts, especially in young children. Those of who will be attending the Local Primary school only 2km from the mine area.

I strongly oppose the entire Bowdens Silver Project, it is not an environmentally or socially sound project.
The project is incompatible with Lue and surrounding property due to the close proximity of two kilometers The community has witnessed the demise of the Wollar . Cumbo valley and ulan communities due to mining. Please refer to the Lue Action Group social impact report in the EIS submission
It does not promote the sustainable management of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Removing artifacts to "keep in a safe place" dismisses the importance of place and song lines. Song lines are integral to aboriginal spirituality.
Song lines are deeply tied to the Australian landscape and provide important knowledge, cultural values and wisdom. Aboriginal sites must not be disturbed.
381ha of native vegetation will be cleared, including 180ha BC Act listed box gum woodland and 146ha classified under EPBC Act.
95% of box gum woodland has been cleared in NSW, surely there is a responsibility for remaining areas to be kept intact.
The assessment regarding koalas was insufficient. Recently, there was another koala sighting at Bingman Crossing, 2km from the proposed open pit.
A large proportion of biodiversity off sets are owned by the proponent. The close proximity of these off sets to the proposed mine site
may in fact be a problem if species are shy of the mine area .Lue action group provided a biodiversity report in their EIS submission.

Realignment of 500kv transmission line.
The concerns in relation to the realignment have not been mitigated by the proposed final alignment.
Visual impacts remain unchanged from the previous proposal and the character and quality of visual landscape is affected by the proposed line. Structure views have increased in the final proposal.
My property is one of the closest to the mine site and the present transmission line is not visible, however the visual analysis claims I can see two existing towers.
Images on pages 20,21,22 (appendix 8) are facing the wrong direction and there are no images taken from the Western side of the village.
Approximately 12 properties on the Western side would have good views of the proposed line. Bowdens have not communicated with me personally re the re alignment.
The NSW Stressed Rivers Assessment places Lawson Creek in the most stressed category with both high environmental stress and high extraction rate. Lawson Creek is on the North and Eastern boundary of my property so I am well aware of how the creek responds to weather events. The creek does not have the capability to withstand further water losses
Bowdens Silver announced that in order to maintain water supply, a pipeline was to take water from the Ulan coalfields in order that the project would not place additional demand on local and regional water resources.
The creek regularly ceases flow above Bara Creek and deteriorates to waterholes, fed by ground water flows.
The creek is an important source of water for wildlife and acts as a refuge in a predominantly agricultural area.
In the drought ending in 2020, the creek had dried out completely (see attached image) and multiple sections of the creek down to Mudgee
were also completely dry. Such semi arid conditions could be expected every 2 in 5 years.
Flow studies were not done on Lawson Creek but are instead, based on the Cudgegong River, upstream of Rylstone. Using studies from
the Cudgegong provides incorrect data as the Cudgegong is a totally different water catchment and stream flows are higher.
In response to the EIS submissions, Bowdens stated that "no occupants of residences within Lue or surrounds are predicted to experience a reduction to supply of groundwater or surface water due to the project"
In correspondence with Bowdens, I was informed that due to groundwater draw down induced by open pits and retention of water on site,
that "collectively these reductions would ultimately result in flows of Lawson Creek, adjacent to your property would be reduced by .5 megaliters per day".
It is clear, from the Bowdens Water Amendment, that water licenses are coming from the Sydney Basin Catchment and downstream in the Murray Darling Catchment. It is unacceptable to be transferring these licenses from other catchments and further down the Macquarie Catchment, to the Lawson valley, which is at the head of the Macquarie catchment.
Please refer to Water Amendment Analysis. Written by Shireen Baguley, attached to Lue Action Group submission.
Acid mine Drainage...Sixty four percent of the waste rock is potentially acid forming rock which is a very high percentage. The potential of acid mine drainage is a serious concern for this proposed mine. The devastating effects of acid mine drainage has been well documented Any risk of acid mine drainage occurring can not be accepted. The waste rock placement is within the Price creek floodplain. Please refer to Dr Haydyn Washingtons submission and attached power point presentation.
For technical analysis of issues raised, please refer to Lue Action Group submission.

I object to Bowdens proposal because there has been no assessment of possible aboriginal cultural sites in the area proposed for mining or in the immediate vicinity of it.

Thank you for reading this submission. I very strongly object to the proposed amendment for the following reasons. Bowdens original assured the local community that the local water supply would not be included in its plans,instead bringing in the water via pipeline from Ulan. Thus admitting that the water here is a very precious resource, and is not always sufficient for the land and its users.
Now the story changes.
We have recently lived through a devastating drought which will doubtlessly occur again, most probably more frequently as the climate crisis deepens.
There seem to be a number of data validity issues with Bowdens’ surface water assessment - such as the omission of some extremely dry years such as 2019 from the data, affecting the average figures. The average rainfall mentioned is incorrect when compared to BOM figures. Lue doesn’t receive that amount pa. This does not augur well for trust in Bowdens communications.
The amended plan does not address how it would source water in the dry years nor does it have a plan for increasing effects of climate change.
It is arrogant and infuriating of Bowdens to state that this amendment ‘would not significantly impact other water users including the natural environment’. As shown in environmental auditor Shireen Baguley’s review (attached) there would be a loss of flow of 10.9% of the Lawson Creek catchment. This can by no means be considered as insignificant! WHY, IF THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT IS TRULY INSIGNIFICANT AS STATED BY BOWDENS, DID THEY NOT PROPOSE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT PLANNED FOR A RUINOUSLY EXPENSIVE PIPELINE OF OVER 50 KILOMETERS!? Again, this suggests that Bowdens cannot be trusted - it looks suspiciously as though they were always planning to ditch the pipeline but used it as a sop to the community, to add the true plan later as a ‘small’ amendment.
The local community has recently lived through the very traumatic impact of major drought on this land. The 2019/20 bushfires have left deep scars. Please do not ignore the local people of this land, who have dealt with so much already. To remove precious and much needed water from this landscape, thus increasing the effects of inevitable future droughts, will result in our community and natural environment facing an increase of the already substantial impact of climate change. Please reject this proposal and ensure the water remains where needed for the land, wildlife, farmers and wine growers on our land.
I attach Ms Baguley’s technical review on this amendment.
Best regards
Luciana Smink

I object to the proposal because the number of truck movements per day predicted by Bowdens will damage already inferior small rural roads and endanger other road users.

I am a keen bird watcher and regularly visit the Putta Bucca Wetlands on the outskirts of Mudgee. I am very concerned about the potential threat to these increasingly important wetlands from acid mine leakage at the proposed Bowden Silver mine.

Nowhere have Bowdens addressed this issue. The EIS, the original response to submissions, and this amendment totally fail to have any serious discussion on acid mine drainage and heavy metal pollution. They don’t even mention it! Yet every heavy metal sulphide mine around the world has serious problems with acid mine drainage and the heavy metals it carries. This is a very serious omission that must be rectified before any further consideration of this DA.

I object to the proposal because of the power line relocation amendment.
Power line relocation will result in loss of threatened box woodland vegetation, further endangering species which depend on it.
Power line relocation will also result in poor visual impacts for surrounding landowners, thereby reducing property values in the area.

My name is Bruce Christie and I have lived in the Lue area for the last 42 years. We have a family property that is within the current lease of Bowden’s Mine and live approximately 8kms from the mine. With my family we manage a grazing property and have concerns on the construction of the mine so close to ourselves, the Lue village (population 800), Mudgee township (population 11,000) and for the surrounding rural businesses.
With the recent changes to the EIS our concerns from this mine have escalated. The supply of water for dust mitigation in the original EIS was a mix of pipeline and harvested water out of the Lawson Creek Valley. With the recent changes, water supply is now reliant totally on water harvested on site or capturing surface water from the Lawson Creek system. Having lived in the area for decades I have seen the Lawson Creeks flow reduce to nothing at regular intervals with downstream landholders reliant on shallow well water, or a system of waterholes. These waterholes are also drought refugia for aquatic life that maintain the health of the Lawson Creek and limits local extinctions of the diversity of aquatic species during dry times. This water is now under threat from the development of this mine and the resultant drawdown of the aquifer.
Ground water is not homogenous and will flow through a network of paleo channels that have been laid down over millennia. With the massive void created by the mine it is more than likely that it will interrupt this flow and halt the flow of ground water ensuring that nothing gets past to water uses and townships below Lue. This will affect the businesses that relied on this ground water for stock and household use in these dry periods. Bowden’s have said that they will supply water to these businesses, unlikely, but even if true, what will happen after 16 years when the expected life of the mine will be complete. Who will supply water into the future with the Lawson Creek flow irreversibly altered?
I also feel that Bowden’s have overestimated the rainfall for the area and therefore their calculations on their harvestable rites for water harvesting. Their current calculations would be optimistic, again resulting in a lack of water for dust mitigation. There is a critical need for dust suppression due the proximity of the mine to the Lue village. A high level of toxic waste products particularly lead dust will be created. There is no safe level of lead for communities. The buffer zones from mining activities are necessary to protect the public. Given that the proposed mine pit is only 2 kilometres from Lue, there is no opportunity for a sufficient buffer zone to prevent lead dust reaching the village through single or multiple dispersion events.
The large power towers that will need to be moved were originally placed to limit the aesthetic impact by placing them where they will have the least impact to the visual amenity of the area. With the realignment of these large towers to the ridge, or just below they will still be visible and take away for what is a very scenic area and increasingly reliant on tourist traffic with many farms stays and bed and breakfasts in the area supplementing agricultural incomes.
There has been very little information available on the power supply for the mine operation. Where will that come from? What damage will it do to the Grassy Box Gum Woodland endemic to the surrounding area with the need to clear adjacent to the power supply?
On top of these recent changes to the EIS the existing issues remain with the mine and were not adequately answered in the response to the EIS from Bowden’s. There are many but a few are:
1. Damage to the Grassy Box Gum Woodland relies on offsets. Some of these offsets will be land adjacent to the mine. Hard to believe that those offsets will not be radically altered and suffer from the proximity to the mine itself with light pollution effecting all levels of biodiversity. The clearing of Grassy Box Gum Woodland that has taken thousands of years to develop for a mine life of 16 years is flawed.
2. Construction of the tailing dam is still inadequate, with admission that it will leak and leach into the ground water over time. This is totally unacceptable for what little ground water that may escape the void after it has filled (over 100 years), to then be contaminated by leaching for downstream users.
3. The proximity to the village of Lue. With the obvious lack of available water for dust mitigation there will be dust events that will disperse over the village. This will make it impossible for them to harvest rainwater (there is no town water available) or grow vegetables. There will have to be a concerted effort by the population to ensure their houses are sealed and for children, that are most vulnerable is an unacceptable risk in these modern times. It will signal the demise of Lue Village as who would want to risk their health to live so close to a lead mine? Lue will go the same way as Wollar, Ulan and Bylong, communities dispersed and no services left in the area.
The decision for this mine to go forward would be a decision that generations into the future would regret for a very long time. It would be irresponsible for the government who have been made aware of these risks to support this mine. It will open future generations to the risk of lead, a contaminated environment and open the government to litigation from future generations given all are aware of the risks involved.
The Lue community has had enough of the threat of an impending mine over their future, and it is time it is stopped.

The amendments to the Bowdens Silver Project are positive ones and I support them wholeheartedly. The reasons I am supportive of the amendment and the project in general include the following:
- The new water strategy allows the proposed mine to be fully self sufficient for water requirements and remain financially viable throughout its entire mine life.
- The inclusion of a paste thickener plant and new water management strategy reduces average processing water usage by 390ML per year.
- Improved water management techniques within the tailings dam ensure better usage and environmental outcomes.
- Removal of the pipeline reduces the need for vegetation clearing.
- The new powerline alignment is further away from residences to the west and will improve visual amenity outcomes. There will also be less towers relocated/built positively impacting the construction process for nearby residents and also economically for the company.
Overall, these amendments provide positive outcomes for the community, the environment and the company. The project will also provide up to 320 jobs within the community which in turn will also help provide economic and social stimulus within the local towns and villages. This proposed mine will also help diversify the local mining landscape within the Mudgee region as the world moves away from fossil fuels, thereby providing an opportunity for the Mid-Western region to continue to prosper in the coming years.