Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

We at EDC Consultants support this submission and wish Wallarah 2 Coal Project all the best in the submissions and furture success.

Projects like this provide essential employment and income opportunities to a whole tranche of small businesses like mine, that support the mining industry. The current economic climate has made it very difficult for these companies to continue to trade. This project would provide the lifeline for such companies. I would endorse this project, subject to the findings of the application process.

I object the proposal to mine under the dooralong valley

As no one can possibly guarantee that there will be no impact to drinking water supplied to 350,000+ people on the Central Coast this mining proposal and any future mine applications must be rejected

I will not accept a computer model advising everything should be fine.

support

Approval of this underground mine would be great for the Wyong Shire and local areas offerring employment including apprenticeships for a community with a very high unemployment rate.

I am concerned about the future of my family ; that of my friends', neighbours' and fellow residents of the Central Coast ; and that of the place I chose to live in.

- This project, if it goes ahead, will affect me:
I live in a mine subsidence area, straight up from the proposed underground mining operations. That means that the ground beneath my feet/house, or that the hills next to which I live, or that the creek that flows through my land and neighbourhood can collapse.

- It will affect us all on the Central Coast:
the proposed mining operation would drill under the Coast's main water catchment of Wyong River, Jilliby Creek, some of their tributaries and several natural ponds and wetlands.

- It will affect our natural landscape, ecological balance and heritage:
the proposed underground mining operation will drill under wetlands, rivers, farm land, state forests, and conservation areas.

Longwall mining operations pose known serious risks which will leave a permanent imprint on the area:
1. Contamination of water catchment by methane, ethane, and other gases released into the aquifers, streams, bogs, ponds and rivers.
2. Collapse of rivers, rivulets, ponds and wetlands leading to drying out (the water bleeds through underground cracks created by drilling/mining)
3. Shortage of water supply for the Coast's residents
4. Flooding in low lying areas
5. Dust

Again, this is not just affecting me and my land, but our water catchment for our generation and the next. The Central Coast is growing and is priding itself of its natural beauty - It is paramount to protect these assets and our water supply.

I personally object to this project based on the risks listed above. If these risks were only to be impacting my tiny little life, I wouldn't step onto my soap box. BUT, these risks would affect my child's generation, and that of her children.

I also generally object any project associated with the unethical raping of land resources that will cause trauma, ill-health and pollution.

Water is more valuable than coal.


Yours faithfully,

Alexia Martinez

I'm in FAVOUR of the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons;

1. Increased infastructure projects for the Wyong region.

2. Increased employment opportunities for the Central Coast as a whole.

3. Provide job security and a secure long term future for hundreds of Central Coast workers both young and old.

4. Provide jobs for future generations to come.

5. Increased tourism for the region due to greater infrastructure in roads, cycleways, parks, sporting complexes and the building industries such as hotels and resorts.

6. Provide school leavers on the Central Coast with a future in Coal Mining at years 11 and 12 with courses in Mine Engineering, Environmential studies and Workplace Safety.

7. The W2CP will also benefit all TAFE colleges and Univerities on the Central Coast with Diploma and Degree courses in Mining, Engineering, Environment and Safety.

Coal mining is integral to our Nation's continued survival and, as a contractor, we are able to employ local people for the ancilliary services to support this venture. I wholey support this project for the benefit of our local workforce and the local community.

I have lived in Wyong and Lake Macquarie for 24 yrs and my kids were born here, I have 2 sons doing engineering at university. I sincerely hope this goes ahead, kids need to work and I will be grateful if my boys can work here and not have to move away. If the people who have designed this are Australian engineers, scientists and geologists and have answered the environmental questions asked of them then the priority should be what the locals can get out of the project not what nationality the owners are. As our leaders, are you focusing on our kids and their future?. for there are a large number of unemployed youth in Wyong who need a start in life. Their circumstances will shape tomorrow's community. Jobs make a difference and mining has been positive here. Kids getting skills and apprenticeships and underemployed tradesmen moving into mining jobs around the Lake means we are lucky to live in a happy, secure community that has improved in prosperity, surrounded by a beautiful and healthy environment, as Lake Mac is. If this is to be an underground mine with the same type of parameters as others nearby then this mine will provide few problems and more of these benefits. The Wyong Council and State Gov should be grabbing this, making it work for us, ensuring it delivers local employment and another source of community funding. As Government, you should be able to see through the nonsense of open cut mining photos and other distortions of reality and consider what we need. Come on, don't muck around any longer, we want this.

Australia leads the world in development of safe, economical and profitable mineral extraction, this is an industry that must be encouraged.
I beleive the underground coal industry is important economically, and with the planned environmental controls this mine poses no risk to the area I live in. .

I am a 3rd generation resident in this area. I have worked closely in and around various coal mines in the local area since leaving school.

It is my opinion that with the introduction of improved techniques in underground mining and the focus on best practice within the industry, there is little effect on the landscape and surrounding environment.

The coal mining industry in general places great emphasis on quality care and research, resulting in minimal community and public impact.

On a personal level, as a father and grandfather, the coal mining industry can provide not only long term employment, but that within a high income scale. This is a great asset to local community otherwise struggling with record level unemployment figures.

Finally, the positioning of the site and the efforts focused on the design and implementaion will prove to have minimal visual impact and low level noise emissions.

I strongly support the application.

I have resided in the local area my entire life. I am a 3rd generation resident. I have had a close working relationship with the local mining industry, which has provided long term, stable employment for my family members and close friends.

The benefits far outweigh any negative aspects to this proposal. With modern mining techniques and an emphasis focused heavily on environmental impact, there is little to no impact on the environment and its community.

The Wallarah 2 project would inject new life into an otherwise stale local economy, providing not only much needed employment, but a dramatic increase in clientelle for local business.

I strongly submit the application for the Wallarah 2 project

I think this will give the region an economic boost & provide much needed jobs

We need to make use of our resources while we can, provided we minimise any impact on the environment and community

I believe this will be a great outcome for the region, I am confident that all impact studies and statements will suceed

I support for the Wallarah 2 coal project to proceed as it offers improved job opportunities for the local residents. Central Coast area is lacking big business idusttries, and yet its population is growing faster than its economy can sustain. Hence high unemployment rate is rising.
I bellieve that the Wallarah 2 coal project can significantly help boost the local economy, improve local infrastructures, and will stimulate the growth of other small local businesses. Furthermore,the project has also higlighted detailed plans on maintaining a low impact to the local environment during mining. Therefore I also believe that the benefits this project brings to the community outwieghs any environmental impact issues.

I am a resident of Yarramalong Valley, but am not directly affected by the subsidence, water, land values or any other issue. I am not anti coal.

My opposition to the mine is based on sound historic observations, technical data and common sense.

This area is a declared water catchment for a very good reason. It provides drinking water for the whole of the central coast. We, as land owners, have very strict guidelines regarding the activities we are able to carry out in the valley for good reason.
Without getting into highly technical arguments which have been presented by the Australian Coal Alliance and others, my argument is based on saving the water quality, and relies on common sense and anti-corruption.

The State Government Scientific Committee on Long Wall Coal Mining report is a credible document, which leaves little to the imagination, and is supported by the arguments raised by all the opponents to this mine. I should not need to burden you again with all that info, but trust it will be properly considered.

The community on the Central Coast was subjected to a Labour Party reshuffle where Ian McDonald became the Minister for Natural Resources and also Minister for the Central Coast.
This effectively shut down the community voice. We knew at the time this was a setup in favour of the proposal, and thank God, ICAC became involved and stopped this little group of alleged crooks.

The promise by the O'Farrell Government was well received, but has also been broken, so the opinion of the general community on the coast is that we do not trust the system.

We have seen reports that Nick DiGirolamo, a Liberal party fundraiser lobbied the Premier and Chris Hartcher in favour of the mine, and now we have a broken promise.

We have also seen reports of huge sums of money being given to local organisations and schools, specifically :
- CCGT, which is associated with the Mayor Eaton (Director) and Councillor Best (GM) sitting on Wyong Council,
- Wyong Public ($70K), Wyee ($10K) and other schools, which are State owned and operated, under the current Government.
- community groups like the Central Coast Poultry Club, who say their "Gift" from the mining company is estimated to be worth $700,000.

The only way this mine could now proceed in good faith is by an independent Judiciary, being a panel of three or more Judges, hearing submissions, both technical, social and economical, under oath, by the professional engineers on both sides, experts and the community.
This process would have the threat of Contempt, resulting in Jail time for any person who lies to the panel.

Given the corruption and bribery we have seen so far, the community does not trust the process, and the mine should not proceed under the current process.

My questions are :
"What assurances are now in place to ensure that the people taking part in the process are honest, impartial and above corruption and intimidation ?"
"Is there a mechanism in place where any corrupt or unethical behaviour would be seen and dealt with as contempt of court, resulting in a jail term ?"
"Is there an Ethics guideline, which must be adopted by the panel and other participants ?"

I look forward to your answer, and an honest outcome this time around.

Yours sincerely,
Warren Simmons.

The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture (WAJCV), Kores P/L, in 2010 was rejected by the previous NSW Government in March 2011 on grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the Government's application of the Precautionary Principle. Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.The current NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" as intended should nullify the application at hand.
. The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette no 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950). The now extinguished Part 3a of the EPA Act overrode this Statute , so effectively the original protective measure should now be in place.
. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford LGA's rely upon the 53% of their potable water emanating from these critical valleys. Recently the completed $80 million Mardi-Mangrove pipeline was funded by the Federal Government specifically to transfer water from this system to the Mangrove Dam on the escarpment during flood rains. The valleys above this mine regularly flood as agreed in the proponent's submission.
. In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata were evident and so bulk water would not be impeded on its downward path.
. Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. Professor Phillip Pells, Senior Lecturer at the University of NSW dismisses these claims. Kores do admit to a so-called tiny loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre. This extrapolates over the whole mine area some 8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete. The professional uncertainties characterised within the Kores submission paint a very tentative picture for protection of the coast's natural potable water supply.
.The Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. For instance (page 258, Appendix H) indicates... .../2
"Page 73.- a similar issue of semantics occurs when discussing changes to stream alignment. MSEC states that there will be no significant changes, but what is regarded as significant? Can this be quantified at all?" ..and.. again.. "Page 74..(part).In discussion of valley floor closure and upsidence, it is noted that such behaviour is expected to occur in a number of valleys, but will be masked by overlying alluvium. It is noted that small zones of increased permeability might develop in the top few metres of the rock head beneath the alluvium, but due to the saturated overlying alluvium, these increased permeability zones will not result in any impact on surface water levels. This conclusion may be correct, but is it not possible that some conditions may exist due to localised geological changes, and changing climatic conditions such that the alluvium is not always saturated and some loss of water level in the streams may occur? "....
. Some 36 panels are to be mined, including in the Hue Hue Subsidence Area where 150 houses (Appendix H Map on page 240) mostly of modern brick design exist on subdivided acres and will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre but may well suffer further subsidence due to the existence of Awaba Tuff strata below the mine on which the remaining pillars are supported. Much discussion within the application refers to the uncertain nature and caution needed re the soft bedded Awaba Tuff leading to a scenario of adaptive management as mining begins to proceed. This type of experimental mining should only be carried out in an outback remote location and not under modern homes within the expanding outer suburbs of Wyong. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and immediately inform the unsuspecting owners of the properties in the Hue Hue Subsidence District.
. A total of 245 houses (Append.H Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 715 Rural Building Structures will be impacted (Append. H >page 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Append.H>page 187). As can be seen the projected damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.
. Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.
. 19 species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China,(CAMBA) Japan(JAMBA) and Korea itself(ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements.
. The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately. The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water,infrastructure , amenity and health is breathtaking. The addition of the result of burning this resource within the next 30 years has not been evaluated upon damage to the earth's climate and will be wholly condemned as the trend to reject fossil fuels gains momentum.

This is the second time that this application has been submitted. Nothing has changed. The community totally resents the pressure and stress put on it by the proponent and the Government after already winning the argument, and obtaining a promise from the Premier himself, after he had given it full consideration and had a complete understanding of the situation.
Given the data before us, there is no logical reason for this mine to proceed and only a corrupt, irrational and negligent system would allow it.
This process is heavily manipulated and deliberately wastes the communities time and effort. Personally, I am disgusted.

I beleive that this project is not in the best interests of the community on the central coast, and the potental negative enviromental effects are not managable.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT APPLICATION NO. SSD - 4974

Dear Sir/Madam
The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture (WAJCV), Kores P/L, in 2010 was rejected by the previous NSW Government in March 2011 on grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the Government's application of the Precautionary Principle. Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.The current NSW Government's "Aquifer Interference Policy" as intended should nullify the application at hand.
. The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette no 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950). The now extinguished Part 3a of the EPA Act overrode this Statute , so effectively the original protective measure should now be in place.
. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford LGA's rely upon their potable water emanating from these critical valleys.

The recently completed $80 million Mardi-Mangrove pipeline was funded by the Federal Government specifically to transfer water from this system to the Mangrove Dam on the escarpment during flood rains. Thus is at risk is mining causes subsidence under the valleys.

The valleys above this mine regularly flood as agreed in the proponent's submission.

In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for water to travel downwards to the coal strata were evident and so bulk water would not be impeded on its downward path.

Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. Professor Phillip Pells, Senior Lecturer at the University of NSW dismisses these claims. Kores do admit to a so-called tiny loss of water rated at 2ml per day per square metre. This extrapolates over the whole mine area some 8 megalitres per day or 3000 megalitres each year once mining is complete. The professional uncertainties characterised within the Kores submission paint a very tentative picture for protection of the coast's natural potable water supply.

The Peer Review by Professor Bruce Hepplewhite (page 258, Appendix H) questions many of the terms used and assumptions made during the geological modelling upon which subsidence and water loss are based. For instance (page 258, Appendix H) indicates... .../2

"Page 73.- a similar issue of semantics occurs when discussing changes to stream alignment. MSEC states that there will be no significant changes, but what is regarded as significant? Can this be quantified at all?" ..and.. again.. "Page 74..(part).In discussion of valley floor closure and upsidence, it is noted that such behaviour is expected to occur in a number of valleys, but will be masked by overlying alluvium. It is noted that small zones of increased permeability might develop in the top few metres of the rock head beneath the alluvium, but due to the saturated overlying alluvium, these increased permeability zones will not result in any impact on surface water levels. This conclusion may be correct, but is it not possible that some conditions may exist due to localised geological changes, and changing climatic conditions such that the alluvium is not always saturated and some loss of water level in the streams may occur? "....

Some 36 panels are to be mined, including in the Hue Hue Subsidence Area where 150 houses (Appendix H Map on page 240) mostly of modern brick design exist on subdivided acres and will be subjected to subsidence up to one metre but may well suffer further subsidence due to the existence of Awaba Tuff strata below the mine on which the remaining pillars are supported. Much discussion within the application refers to the uncertain nature and caution needed re the soft bedded Awaba Tuff leading to a scenario of adaptive management as mining begins to proceed. This type of experimental mining should only be carried out in an outback remote location and not under modern homes within the expanding outer suburbs of Wyong.

The Department of Infrastructure and Planning should be alarmed by this and immediately inform the unsuspecting owners of the properties in the Hue Hue Subsidence District.

Some 245 houses (Append.H Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a conservative 1.0 to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 715 Rural Building Structures will be impacted (Append. H >page 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering subsidence to some degree (Append.H>page 187). As can be seen the projected damage inside the mining lease area would be catastrophic. The hinterland of the valleys are to be subsided 2.6 metres; Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is predicted to fall 2 metres; the main artery into the Jilliby/Dooralong Valley, Jilliby Road is destined to be subsided 1.75 metres in places, remembering that these valleys flood on a regular basis leaving residents isolated from all directions.

Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements will impact on the established suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyee and all along the rail corridor from Morisset through Cardiff and southern suburbs to the port of Newcastle. The proponent fails to adequately address these ramifications. New burgeoning suburbs being created in northern Wyong shire will be impacted by the mining proposal. It is placed amid these developments and should not be considered based on known high rates of asthma and bronchitis as voiced by the medical profession for decades.

Some 19 species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC Act with binding agreements with China,(CAMBA) Japan(JAMBA) and Korea itself(ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements.

The Director-General's Requirements are extensive and in most areas Kores have failed to address these adequately. The proposal should be rejected outright as the long term damage to the coast's water,infrastructure , amenity and health is breathtaking. The addition of the result of burning this resource within the next 30 years has not been evaluated upon damage to the earth's climate and will be wholly condemned as the trend to reject fossil fuels gains momentum.