Mangoola Coal Continued Operations Project

I support the Mangoola Coal Continued Operations Project because it will provide employment and major economic benefits to regional NSW. The project will provide continued employment of up 480 direct jobs and a lot more indirect jobs in the services and contracting business's that employ local people in the regional communities of the Upper Hunter Valley.
The state of NSW needs projects that provide revenue to support government and provide funding for infrastructure as the population of NSW continues to grow. The project will deliver a net benefit of A$408.6 million to NSW and A$121 million in royalties over the life of mine that will go directly to the NSW treasury to fund the government's activities.
The Upper Hunter regional community needs the employment and continuing support of Glencore Mangoola as they are excellent supporters of local community projects. The Mangoola workforce is local and engaged in the community and needs the support of the NSW Dept of Planning by way of a project approval.
Refusal of the project on the grounds of potential impact to the climate if coal is burnt using old technology is a nonsense that will drive coal jobs to Queensland and Indonesia as coal is a global commodity that can be easily mined and shipped from our competitors mines. Please don't give away NSW's competitive advantage in the global energy market to appease vested interests in the alternate energy market. Please keep NSW the Premier State by approving the Mangoola Coal Continued Operations Project.

“Tillabudgery”
760 Ridgelands Road
Wybong NSW 2333

OBJECTION TO MANGOOLA COAL CONTINUED OPERATIONS PROJECT

My residence (#263) is less than 2 kilometres from the nearest projected earthworks in the CCOP application. The extension to mining operations should be refused on the following basis:
1. The most significant concern of residents in the mines proximity is the negative impact on value of properties immediately outside the predicted VLAMP acquisition zones. The proponent has put forward a list of mitigation and enhancement proposals that either only partly mitigate the noise and dust impacts caused by the mine or are applied in neighbouring towns or areas more than20 kms from impacted properties. None of the enhancement proposals addresses loss of value for landholders.
2. Associated with property impact is the inability to sell properties affected by proximity to the mine expansion at fair market value outside of the mining company. At least three properties have been for sale for more than a year drawing potential buyers who, when appraised of the mine expansion, walked away without making an offer. Owners need to move on for work, health, retirement or family reasons and cannot realise their biggest asset. The SIA proposes to develop a Community Enhancement Project but fails to directly address this issue.
3. The predicted noise contours in the EIS defy belief. Odd properties either included in higher zones or property predictions outside lower contour lines indicate a lack of proper rigour. Local experience is that noise levels vary widely both in intensity, time of day and location. Averaging of noise measurements and discounting levels when temperature inversion occurs fails to recognise that industrial noise wakes people, grates on their nerves and destroys their enjoyment of the environment however it is transmitted.
4. Levels of airborne and deposited dust are already at intolerable levels. Every morning all external surfaces are covered with a fresh layer of fine dust. This may be a cumulative result of mining in the area but a mine extension towards our residence will only make that worse.
5. The project will increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In the decision against Gloucester Coal the Land and Environment Court found merit in that Groundswell argued that the Project should be refused because the GHG emissions from the Project, both direct and indirect, would be inconsistent with Australia’s commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature increases to below 1.5º to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, and would have a cumulative impact on climate change in the long term. (source: corrs.com.au)
James Morgan
25th August 2019

Mangoola Coal has a very proud record of delivering on its commitments over the first 10 years of the operation. This record not only includes meeting targets, a positive safety record, but an industry leading commitment to environmental management (especially rehabilitation) and community involvement and support. The Mangoola Coal operations have had a proactive policy to recruit personnel from the local area, which has seen the economic benefits of the operation have a positive multiplier effect. Mangoola training activities, utilise community facilities around the local shires, most consistently in Muswellbrook, Denman and Singleton, which provides an additional economic boost to the area. Mangoola leadership operates the mine with integrity and transparency working with staff, contractors, community and regulators in a professional and ethical manner, very aware of the important role it holds within the community.

After a successful first decade, approval of the continued operations will continue to see Mangoola coal continue to deliver on its commitments with great benefit to the community.

I object to the Mangoola Coal Continued Operations Project application for the following reasons:
- Mangoola Coal stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars profit from the coal they mine and sell at the expense of nearby private landholders whose properties are devalued because of noise, dust and other impacts from the mine. Already nearby properties are proving impossible to sell on the open market as potential buyers learn of the planned extension. Potential buyers are walking away when they hear about the proposed mine extension.
- The Social Impact Assessment clearly identifies loss of property values as the top issue for residents local to the mine extension however the mine’s submission fails to address this in the Community Enhancement Programme. The proposed economic benefits increase the further away from the mine you go. The only mitigation measures for local residences are to reduce the effects of the noise and dust produced by the mine.
- The projected noise contours defy logic. The 35 Dba contour does not encompass residences with predicted noise levels of 35 Dba. Seemingly arbitrary encirclements of single properties do not make sense.
- The project will increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In the decision against Gloucester Coal the Land and Environment Court found merit in that Groundswell argued that the Project should be refused because the GHG emissions from the Project, both direct and indirect, would be inconsistent with Australia’s commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature increases to below 1.5º to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, and would have a cumulative impact on climate change in the long term. (source: corrs.com.au)

Development approval for this project should be refused.

The coal industry has provided many young school leavers with a great start in life and able to support their families in their local community.
Mangoola has proved what they say, they do, in their great effort in the rehabilitation work they have already completed!!

I support this projects approval due to the following reasons.
Mangoola Coal provide good jobs for locals.
Mangoola Coal support local business and sports programs.
Mangoola Coal seem to take pride in having a low visual impact on the area especially compared to other mines. (Take a drive past)
I feel they do a great job on rehabilitation of the land and do it fast.

This project will keep local people in jobs as well as offer further job opportunities to locals. In turn this grows the local economy. Mangoola Coal focuses on locals and gives back to the community. This project will be beneficial for the local community.

As a permanent resident of the Hunter Valley I strongly object to this project for the following reasons:
.Further deterioration of air quality we are forced to endure due to the number of existing mines in the valley
.Increasing invasion of homes due to dust and coal dust as mining operations continue
.Destruction of landscape, flora and topography with no evidence of existing mining restoring mining sites to any were near originality, namely Draytons South and Integra mine sites
.Increase in traffic volumes including heavy vehicles, mine shift workers using rural roads not designed or suitable for this increased usage
.Apparent disregard by mining companies (notably Glencore) for the disruption, lack of reasonable compensation or compassion of the neighbouring landholders whose properties may or may not be in the acquisition zone
.The provisions of VLAMP appear to be totally in favour of the mining companies

I support Mangoola’s continued operations as it has provided me and my family a stable income for the past 9 years and if this isn’t continued I may end up unemployed and me and my family will have have to leave the area to seek permanent work along with the 400 other people and families that Mangoola supports.

The mangoola mine is very beneficial to to the denman and muswellbrook townships. It has created a large number of jobs and the mine has employed people from the local area to fill the majority of these positions. If the mine didnt exist then these locals wouldn't have a job.
Mangoola also contributes to local fundraising and community events, either by donating money or people to help.
I fully support the extension of the mine.

I support the project as it will provide another 5 years to continue mining which provides ongoing employment opportunities and other economic benefits.

I wish to make a submission on part of the above application ie Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment.

I am objecting to the development because Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment has failed in a number of areas: -

1. Failed to identify all the historic heritage within the vicinity of the MCCO Project.
2. Reliance on existing databases does equate to locating all heritage within the area, as Manning Clark stated, ‘a good historian needs a notebook and a stout pair of boots’. In other words, get out and look.
3. A visual assessment was made of the area to capture items that may have escaped the existing database, but this consisted of two days. Totally inadequate when the area being studied is considered.
4. Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment starts to consider the settlement of the area with Table 4.1 Wybong Land Settlers between 1861 and 1889, but the report does not cover an on the ground assessment for archaeological remains. The Table lists 43 settlers, these sites could not be inspected in two days.
5. There is no mention in the assessment of utilising Crown Plans of the early Portion, which may have provided evidence of settlement.
6. This assessment relied on data in the Umwelt, 2008, Historical Heritage Review, prepared on behalf of Xstrata Mangoola Pty Ltd. It had a number of errors, which have been perpetuated. An example is the information re 4.5.4 Callatoota on page 43, all is incorrect which also contradicts the information in 4.3.1. of the present assessment. If one notes an area as incorrect, how much else in the assessment is incorrect?
7. A number of properties within the Historic Heritage Study Area have not been mentioned ie Reynolds Winery (contains 1840s sandstone Bengalla Homestead) and Ridgeland which had been owned by NSW Police.

Mangoola Coal has a policy of total removal of any European Heritage within areas they control. Table 5.3 pp.59-60 provides the evidence.

It is critical that this assessment (Historic Heritage) be accurate and comprehensive. It needs to guide the recording of surface finds and archaeological evaluation of subsurface material. While items may be of very low heritage value in a larger context, they are very high value to the history of the Wybong area and the people who settled here.

Hoping my submission will be taken into consideration when evaluating the Mangoola Coal Project.
I wish to make a submission on part of the above application ie Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment.

I am objecting to the development because Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment has failed in a number of areas: -

1. Failed to identify all the historic heritage within the vicinity of the MCCO Project.
2. Reliance on existing databases does equate to locating all heritage within the area, as Manning Clark stated, ‘a good historian needs a notebook and a stout pair of boots’. In other words, get out and look.
3. A visual assessment was made of the area to capture items that may have escaped the existing database, but this consisted of two days. Totally inadequate when the area being studied is considered.
4. Appendix 15 Historic Heritage Assessment starts to consider the settlement of the area with Table 4.1 Wybong Land Settlers between 1861 and 1889, but the report does not cover an on the ground assessment for archaeological remains. The Table lists 43 settlers, these sites could not be inspected in two days.
5. There is no mention in the assessment of utilising Crown Plans of the early Portion, which may have provided evidence of settlement.
6. This assessment relied on data in the Umwelt, 2008, Historical Heritage Review, prepared on behalf of Xstrata Mangoola Pty Ltd. It had a number of errors, which have been perpetuated. An example is the information re 4.5.4 Callatoota on page 43, all is incorrect which also contradicts the information in 4.3.1. of the present assessment. If one notes an area as incorrect, how much else in the assessment is incorrect?
7. A number of properties within the Historic Heritage Study Area have not been mentioned ie Reynolds Winery (contains 1840s sandstone Bengalla Homestead) and Ridgeland which had been owned by NSW Police.

Mangoola Coal has a policy of total removal of any European Heritage within areas they control. Table 5.3 pp.59-60 provides the evidence.

It is critical that this assessment (Historic Heritage) be accurate and comprehensive. It needs to guide the recording of surface finds and archaeological evaluation of subsurface material. While items may be of very low heritage value in a larger context, they are very high value to the history of the Wybong area and the people who settled here.

Hoping my submission will be taken into consideration when evaluating the Mangoola Coal Project.

Without Mangoola Coal my family and I would not be living in the area contributing to the community. The continued operations project will ensure we and many others have a future in the local community for the near future.

I support the project.

Mangoola Coal is a major employer in the Upper Hunter, they provide ongoing support to businesses in the local area and lower Hunter. I would like to see the continued operation of Mangoola Coal for years to come as they are the only mine in the upper Hunter that has a world class land rehabilitation program which is extremely important to us locals.

Mangoola coal operations is a community based organisations, supports local community, employs local people and businesses, Australian leader in rehabilitation for long term agricultural sustainability, a proud local mining company

Mangoola Coal through its life to date has been a very responsible operation in the mining sector of the Hunter Valley, It provides a major source of employment to the area and contributes generously to the local community. This generosity is shown in many ways such as donations to local groups and causes, a simple example is an annual donation to the Denman fire brigade to sponsor a lolly run at Christmas time. They also give to various sporting clubs in the local area. Mangoola has also proven its capability and willingness to rehabilitate the area after mining has completed with its rehab is easily recognized as industry best practice. It is recognized that some of the rehab areas are actually healthier in native flora and fauna diversity after rehab than they were before the mining started.
In all Mangoola is a very responsible operator in the local area and for the benefits that flow to the community and environment to continue then this project needs to be continued.

Mangoola Coal has enabled me and my family to enjoy the many benefits of ongoing stable employment both financially and physiologically. This has been through ongoing and stable work environment.
Mangoola has demonstrated through ongoing public support and environmental practices that it is a responsible mining operator.

Mangoola Coal mine supports the community, from sponsorship, to stable workforce. This mine has won mine of the year and is at the forefront of rehabilitation practices, I live in the area and regularly travel by and have had no issues with the mine site, actually the roads and infrastructure in the area have improved immensely.
This project supports the local community and hires local workers to complete this.
This mine supports friends, neighbours and family and I see only a continuation of a well organized mine in this proposal.
In the past the local farmlands in this area have struggled to make a profit, mining at least makes a good living off this barren land, I have zero objections to this proposal