Maxwell Underground Coal Mine Project

As a local family owned earthmoving contractor in the Hunter Valley, new mining projects are necessary for mining towns like Muswellbrook and Singleton shires. Muswellbrook is a mining town and has been for many years,and for the continued sustainability of local businesses and the township, new projects are required to replace older mines.
The local population need to be totally supported by the planning process, and local preferences towards local projects needs to hold a greater weighting than comments from people from outside the state.

Coolmore Australia's submission is attached.

24 September 2019

NSW Department Of Planning

Dear Sirs,

Re: Maxwell Underground Coal Mine Project SSD 9526

William Inglis & Son hold grave fears for the future of the New South Wales Thoroughbred Breeding Industry if the proposed Maxwell Underground Coal Mine Project proceeds. This area of New South Wales is home to the major Thoroughbred Studs of Australia with a multi-billion dollar investment in facilities, bloodstock and employees. The establishment of the mine as proposed has the potential to lead to a withdrawal of overseas and local investment in the area, the potential destruction of one of the world’s leading horse breeding areas and the loss of over 1000 specialised equine jobs which have over the last 100 years formed successful communities throughout the Hunter Valley.

The Thoroughbred industry in New South Wales is the leader in the Southern Hemisphere generating enormous returns for the state through the investment of millions of dollars from equine enthusiasts from around the world. If the Thoroughbred Breeding Industry is lost from the Upper Hunter Valley it will be lost to the state forever. The prolonged concerns around coal mining in the Hunter Valley have led to significant bloodstock investment flowing elsewhere including Victoria, Queensland and New Zealand.

The Australian Bloodstock Industry is synonymous with the Hunter Valley, with numerous economic reports demonstrating the significance of the region in terms of the volume of foals produced annually and the economic benefit that flows through the New South Wales economy from this investment. It is estimated that approximately 75% of the sales at the 2019 renewal of our Australian Easter Yearling Sale, the most prestigious thoroughbred yearling sale in the Southern Hemisphere, came from the Hunter Valley.

The management and cultivation of the landscape in the Upper Hunter Valley region produces racehorses who become Champions of the Turf. Racehorse buyers invest in horses from proven producers. The Upper Hunter Valley studs are the proven producers in the Australian Bloodstock industry. All this has the potential to be compromised if the Maxwell Underground Coal Mine project is approved.

William Inglis & Son have been selling Thoroughbred horses in Sydney for over 150 years. The majority of our business has been and is derived through horses bred in the Upper Hunter Valley region of New South Wales. Our full calendar of sales generates significant economic benefit to the economy of New South Wales.

We therefore request that you carefully consider our objections when assessing the appropriateness of the Maxwell Underground Coal Mine Project.

Yours faithfully,
William Inglis and Son Limited.

Arthur Inglis
Deputy Chairman

Firstly, The notification of this proposed project has been woefully unacceptable. The notification received in the mail does not even include the actual location of the proposed sites, let alone a map. Simply advising landowners that they have been notified as they have "been identified as a nearby landowner/occupier" and putting the onus on the individual to investigate to discover the actual location, as well as any actual useful information regarding the project, is an unacceptable approach, and utilises the tactic of applying invisible hurdles to objections by the public. The more difficult it is for residents to access the information the less likely they are to object within the specified timeframe. The council, and state government should not be facilitating the use of such tactics.

Secondly, the information available about the proposed project through the online portal is unacceptable. The information has not been appropriately summarised or presented in a way which is accessible to the general public, in particular, the information available has in no way been presented in a way which allows the affected 'nearby landowner' to ascertain exactly what impacts the proposed project may have upon them, their land, and their water. It once again, places the onus on the landowners to attempt to wade through literally hundreds upon hundreds of pages to attempt to understand the potential impacts. This is a tactic of weeding out objection via burying the relevant information in an avalanche of intimidating and difficult to read reports. Further, when presenting information to the general public it is unfair and unethical to present the information in a manner which relies on prior scientific knowledge and/or advanced comprehension skills. This should not be facilitated by Muswellbrook Council or the State Government.

In light of these two things, the proposed project should be renotified, with information summarised in an accessible way by an objective third party, so that the information is actually accessible to the landowners (presented in a manner which does not rely on advanced scientific knowledge or advanced reading and comprehension skills). A further consultation and submission period should be mandated after the information has been made available to landowners.

My land has been omitted from the list of landowners affected by noise. This is an oversight which must be remedied. Lot/DP 172/740181

We also have approval for a bore, which we have not yet had a chance to have installed. As the proposed project could impact upon that bore, it needs to be added to the list of potentially affected bores and list of bores which would be monitored should all common sense be lost and the proposed project be given the go ahead.

Muswellbrook Council, and specifically the Mayor of Muswellbrook, have by their own volition, publicly admitted that the promises made by mining companies are simply not kept. The state government continues to approve mining on the basis of 'jobs' but the reality for the workers is never more than -temporary- employment in unsafe conditions. Even the supposed "sanctions" imposed upon mining companies after the fact are never anything more than laughable lipservice. I refer you to the statement published by the Mayor of Muswellbrook Martin Rush "STATEMENT ON THE DECISION BY THE RESOURCES REGULATOR TO ACCEPT ENFORCEABLE UNDERTAKINGS FROM BHP BILLITON LIMITED’S SUBSIDIARY, MT ARTHUR COAL PTY LIMITED" published on the Muswellbrook Council website 7 August, 2019.
When it is already known that existing mining operators do not do the right thing, do not follow through on their commitments, and do not operate their mines in a manner which provides a safe work environment for their employees AND that the current system used to regulate, enforce, and sanction the mining operators fails dismally, it defies reason to allow further new projects to be approved.

It is the responsibility of the state government to protect its citizens from unsafe workplaces. It is already known that the system in place to protect employees in the mining industry fails regularly. It would be irresponsible and unethical to put more workers at risk under these circumstances.

It is also the responsibility of the state government to help protect our lands and environment. It is already known that the current system to regulate, enforce and sanction mining operators fails. It would be irresponsible and unethical to approve this project knowing that the likelihood of irreversible damage to the environment is extremely high.

The IESC notes "The potential impacts to groundwater resources (and surface water drainage) are highly likely to be severe and
irreversible. Given the lack of adequate methods to assess the potentially severe and irreversible impacts to
groundwater (and surface water resources) from subsidence, the current groundwater modelling approach has
potentially understated the impacts of the proposed project and overstated the certainty with which the impacts
can be predicted. " This is quite simply unacceptable. The IESC also notes that the modelling method utilised in the assessment is unlikley to provide a realistic view of the effects of the proposed project (MODFLOW-USG).

The IESC further notes that groundwater model utilised contains systematic bias, an overprediction of groundwater levels in comparison to observed data. Unacceptable.

Muswellbrook and surrounds needs to continue to move away from allowing mining, it simply does not pay off. Promises are made and then systematically broken, and the environment, our water supplies, our people, continue to pay the price. Our town is continuously covered in a disgusting layer of muck. Anyone who lives here knows what it is like to have a layer of brown muck over ever surface of your home. The only thing that is worse than having to clean it up continually, is that every time you clean it up, you are painfully aware that it is that same muck that you, and your family is breathing in. Anyone from state planning who thinks it is valid to approve more mining in the hunter valley should have to move here, and see how their sinuses, and their lungs, and their overall health and well being is affected from long term exposure. It is not fair to trade off the health and wellbeing of the local residents, for promises that are broken, and sanctions that are laughable.

Our Company fully supports the proposal for a new Underground Mine at Muswellbrook. Refer attached letter

Attached

Please see letter attached.

I object to the Maxwell Underground Coal Mine Project because;
1) of the high risk posed by this proposal to our air quality, water, productive agricultural land, critical industry clusters and tourism industries
2) my particular worry about the effects of underground mining on our stressed water systems (Hunter River, Sadlers Creek etc) especially when we are suffering badly from regular and prolonged periods of drought.
3) I am worried about the health and well being of our community (both physical and mental) resulting from poor air quality, mining related stress, uncertainty and community division.
4) I am fed up with the strain on my family and this community by the constant mine proposals (this is the third mining proposal on the Drayton South site in less than 10 years). We have no certainty or control over our futures. When is enough enough?
This mine, like the previous two proposals on this site, is not in our social or environmental interests and should be rejected.

Please refer to attached submission.

The cumulative impacts of mining on our businesses, environment and community have not been fully examined, explained or costed. How can anyone assess the impacts of this mining proposal without this information?

I am a resident of the Upper Hunter and I strongly object to this project. My children are 5th generation of our family of graziers at Scone. The Upper Hunter is already suffering the effects of the cumulative impacts of so many mining operations in the area. Our community is striving for a sustainable and healthy future with diversity of industry and long term employment. We want to ensure this sustainable future for our children and we want to protect our farms, our air and our water resources. I strongly object to the Malabar/Drayton South project based on the following:
1. Air Quality/Health – due to the already existing multiple mining operations, the Upper Hunter currently experiences regular air quality exceedances. Our airshed is already overburdened by existing mining operations with cumulative impacts including increased incidence of respiratory disease (especially asthma) and low birthweights for babies. Our local sustainable agricultural industries rely on the clean, green and pristine air which our area has been known and valued for. We do not need or want to be increasing the footprint of existing mining operations. This will only lead to greater air quality issues and exceedances, putting our communities and their health at even greater risk; and further threatening our other sustainable agricultural industries.
2. Water Resources - we depend on our water resources to support and sustain agricultural enterprises in the Upper Hunter. The security of our water resources is threatened by mining operations. We cannot afford to be threatening water resources essential for long term sustainable industries such as agriculture and thoroughbreds for short term economic benefit from coal mining, which is also to the detriment of the environment.
3. Noise - the project will result in increased unacceptable noise impacts on the community and residents in the area close to and surrounding the mine.
4. Community/Social - the project will contribute to the ongoing degradation of the local community - in both numbers and spirit. Many residents will leave the area due to the negative environmental, air quality and noise impacts. For those who are unable to sell their properties (due to decreased land values or lack of buyers due to the impact of a mine being in close proximity), as well as those that feel they have no choice but to move away, this will lead to solastalgia (a form of mental or existential distress caused by the negative transformation of one's environment).
5. Environmental - this project will increase the already multiple negative impacts which mining is already having on our local environment. With reference to the Rocky Hill decision by Chief Justice Preston, now is the time that rapid and deep decreases in emissions are needed to ensure climate targets can be met. The cumulative impacts from the already existing multiple mines in the Upper Hunter already significantly impact the environment. Additional mining is not needed and is considered a tipping point in terms of long term negative impacts on our environment.
6. Investment and Sustainable Industry Growth - I am concerned regarding the impacts of another mine on investment in agriculture and tourism industries which have potential to grow and continue sustainably within the local area surrounding the Drayton South site.

I am writing to object to this project on the grounds of its significant environmental, social and climate change impacts.
My family has lived and worked in the Upper Hunter for more than five generations - in fact we were among the first European settlers in areas such as Denman. We are committed to its future and we believe now is the time to invest in existing sustainable industries such as agriculture - not to invest in an industry with such a limited lifespan. Opening another mine at this stage in the lifecycle of the mining industry would have significant impacts on the prospects for future generations in our region.
How can it be safe to open another mine when our region has no cap on the level of acceptable pollution for the airshed or the catchment? Are we expected to believe that our capacity to safely sustain more mines is infinite? I believe we already have more mines than we can safely sustain and don't believe we can approve new greenfield coal developments without serious impacts on the health, wellbeing and economic prospects of the local community and our existing industries.
We are concerned at the potential liability for the NSW Government and for NSW taxpayers if the Dept of Planning continues to endorse the opening of new mines in the face of significant and unquantified health impacts for local residents. Shouldn't the Dept apply the precautionary principle and complete thorough, evidence based studies into the impact of the region's existing mines on the health of local residents before approving any further impacts?
We are equally concerned that this proposal seems to put a great deal of store in its related but unapproved solar project. What guarantee do we have that this will even come to fruition? This proposal must stack up on its own merits in isolation of any other thought bubbles.
Rehabilitation is a related concern. How is the Dept and the Government managing its liability in this respect? The scope and cost of rehabilitation work requires close interrogation and, in our opinion, regular external auditing.
The social impacts of this project are significant and obvious to someone who lives here and is familiar with the issues of a large DIDO workforce and of the increasing concentration of economic activity on a single industry with a limited lifespan - yet the proponents have come to the extraordinary conclusion that none of these things is an issue. How can they support such conclusions?
Finally, in the face of overwhelming international scientific evidence about the contribution of fossil fuels to man-made climate change, how can it be responsible to open yet another coal mine?
Never mind the PR gloss or the hefty word count - this application still leaves too many serious questions unanswered. We ask that you refuse it.

Please see attached