Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I think this project would be good for the area and the coal mining industry which is dying in this area.

I support this project as I think the coal mining industry needs a boost.

I live in the area where this overseas company are looking to put a coal loader and conveyor etc at my back door. If you don't live in the area how can you know what it is going to be like to put up with black dust on your clothes as well as the noise it is going to create and not to mention the air that you breathe. This is going to go on 24/7. The Health Dept says it is a bad development. What is the Government doing letting this happen.

I did not move to this area to be subjected to this. I moved here for the environment, the clean air and the sea freshness. The Government should do what they have done in other coal mine cases and buy the land back off this Company.

Please stop this mess and think about our children and elderly. Maybe our air isn't important to some but it is to me

To whom it may concern,
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the progression of the mine proposal itself. The application is misleading in that it portrays the economic benefits and job figures for the whole project and does not confine itself solely to this Amendment.
Overall, my concern is that proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, so the community is justifiably worrying that the stated future job prospects, development and, critically, environmental compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
The royalty figures are inflated and do not take into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence. By adding in the long term cost to public health such as from greater airborne diseases, the costs far outweigh the benefits to the public coffers.
The job figures given are for the whole project, not this Amendment, and without the rail spur, have to be less anyway. As in the original EIS, the job prospects are ill defined, highly inflated and misleading.
Dust (containing particulates and other matter) remains a health concern in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. No attempt is suggested to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.
Pm10 emissions from the site do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
I find unacceptable the massive subsidence figures represented in the proponent's EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which will suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.
The Mine Subsidence Board's record of refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
I believe this Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to far too many areas of risk.

The Director, Planning Services, Dept of Planning and Environment.

My wife and I and most of Blue Haven and the surrounding suburbs are absolutely against and mine development in our region, what I have read, our suburb instead of being called Blue Haven will become a
Black Haven.

We are very very concerned with the coal dust, noise and our health and the health of our not yet born children.
We greatly Oppose the development.

The proposed amendment to the Wallarah 2 coal project that places a coal conveyor and loading facility less than 300m from Blue Haven, its absolute madness. the health and sanity of the community must not have been into account by Kores. Coal trains operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week will have an enormous impact on air quality in Blue Haven and surrounding suburbs. We find it unbelievable that this project is still being considered, given the obvious threat to our precious water supply that has been documented over the past 10 years.
Why isn't the State Government protecting people and the environment.

The way of life will be changed in Blue Haven forever if this project is passed.

We again Oppose this development.

I moved to blue haven 22years ago with my young family and hoped to retire here to.
We live on spring creek which runs under the link road and to the very spot the conveyor belt and 9 storey loading facility will be built. spring creek is part of the Tuggerah lakes system which the state government [managed by local council] has spent millions of dollars on to keep it clean ,open to the ocean and unpolluted. wallarah creek runs off to the west and spring creek runs straight to the spot where kores wants to build the loading facility.
the people of blue haven and their children swim in spring creek all the time and catch and eat the fish out of spring creek . even though it's called spring creek it's about 30 metres across and 4ft to 7metrres deep most of the way along spring creek. commercial fishermen net spring creek every year sending their catch to the local co op then to Sydney fish market.
every year we watch as hundreds of thousands of mullet ,bream ,flathead ,stingrays and many other marine species make their way up spring creek to breed and yes you can see thousands of mullet on the surface of spring creek on hot days and bream that attack bread on the surface.
WHY WOULD THE STATE GOVERNMENT WANT TO POLLUTE THIS BEAUTIFUL NATURAL WATER WAY.
Kores doesn't care about our water ways or life styles and the government should take note to what happened in the federal election. they will lose my vote and the vote of many others if this mine goes ahead.
the Korean government is moving to nuclear and solar power generation . THIS MINE IS A DEAD HORSE. LETS LEAVE IT AS A DEAD HORSE .
What government in their right mind would risk the peoples water supply and food supply for such a small amount of money each year and to lose votes

V/v/Y 4sRN 612
Jo PiNC,
Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals
Dept. Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001
Objection to proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project
-
Application No. SSD --
4974
Dear Sir/Madam
The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture 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).
Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford Local Government Area rely upon this major
water catchment for their potable water. The recently completed Mardi-Mangrove pipeline also
relies upon the sustainability of the water catchment district to transfer water from this system
to the Mangrove Dam for water banking.
In 1999 groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, found that transient pathways for
water to travel downwards to the coal strata was 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 loss of water rated at 2m1 per day per square
metre of the mine surface area. This extrapolates over the whole mine area to approximately 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.
Some 46 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.
2
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 modem 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 (Appendix H, Page 130) will be impacted by subsidence from a
conservative one metre to 1.6 metres throughout the mine area. A total of 755 Rural Building
Structures will be impacted (Appendix H, leading up to 179) and 420 Farm Dams suffering
subsidence to some degree (Appendix H, leading up to 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.
Nineteen species of avian migratory waders in the area are protected under the Federal EPBC
Act with binding agreements with China (CAMBA), Japan (JAMBA) and South Korea itself
(ROKAMBA). The proposal directly affects these agreements. There are also flora species listed
as threatened under the Act and local fauna species listed as endangered under the Act with the
proposed mining area.
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, bio diversity, infrastructure, amenity and health is unacceptable. The addition
of the result of burning this resource within the next ten years has not been evaluated upon
damage to the earth's climate and will be wholly condemned as the trend to reject fossil fuels.

As a recent resident of blue haven having moved my young family from sydney to the central coast to remove ourselves from the pollution and expansion of the metro area
we have found our piece of paradise , our aussie dream if you will.
Only to find that a large corporation has decided in their infinite wisdom to place a carcenogenic hazard as close as 1km from a peaceful and expanding suburb stacked full of young families.
In what world does anybody think that this at all ethical to place such a danger to small children that also has the potential to affect them & their own families as they get older.
With potential health effects moving forward into the next generation as well. If this proposal which was dismissed out of hand by a previous state government goes ahead , how do the current politicians think that will bode with the constituents of the Dobell precinct, or is it that as is my suspicion the JUST DO NOT CARE.
I therefore strongly object to this submission and heartily hope that it will be rejected for a third and final time.

Once again big business looks to stomp on people looking to live , pay their taxes and get on with raising their children in a peaceful and tranquil suburb.
How do they think they are going to be able to control mother nature number one, with fickle weather and winds the norm in these modern times. These so called engineers cannot Guarantee with any certainty not only the environmental impacts on the local creeks, but also the health of all members of blue have plus surrounding suburbs , dependant on which way the wind is blowing!!
Quite apart from the environmental aspects how about the noise pollution, in what world do they think that a 24 hour operation will not impact on working families just trying to raise their families. A large portion of the suburb already travel quite some distance to get to and from work and work shifts also. Once again instead of paying to use the aboriginal land or my personal preference to move the entire project further up the rail line towards newcastle, where this coal will be dispatched from. I VERY STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

Kathleen Lovatt

See attached submission

Come on, the answer is no, it was no before, don't bother applying again and dressing the fox as chicken.
Fresh drinking water is vital to life and requires our trusted servants to protect it.
My mother always said, 1 no is as good as 1/2 a dozen.
Respectfully.

This is our SHIRE and our DRINKING WATER, not Kores or anyone elses to destroy and contaminate. Please do not approve this or any other mine.

As a Registered Nurse and a Public Health student, I have become aware of the significant risks posed to human and environmental health as a result of coal mining. I oppose the Wallarah 2 mine on these grounds:

1. The known and existing negative impacts of coal mining on human and environmental health in Australia, including the costs to the health care system
2. Significant risks to drinking water supply, including contamination and loss of groundwater
3. New coal mines should not be opened in Australia, as a transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energies will provide the best opportunity to prevent catastrophic climate change and the associated human and environmental health costs.

Thank you,
Rachel Craig

I am using a pre prepared objection, but I absolutely agree with every point made. I believe this process is unsafe, undemocratic and has no thought to longevity nor to the community.
As a local GP, I am mortified that it is felt, on any level, safe to propose what will be an absolute disaster for the safety of the major water supply.
Please stop this proposal.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

I object to the proposal as it poses a serious threat to Wyong's drinking water.
Also I have doubts as to the economic viability of the project.
I feel that no good can come from mining under the water sources of any area.

Attached

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.
50% of the Central Coast water supply comes from the creek and river valleys under which the mine is proposed to operate. Should the land structures above the longwall mine operations fracture - and they have everywhere else such mining is undertaken - and cause the aquifers to run into the mine, that 50% of the Central Coast water supply will be lost for ever.
Is the mining company prepared to take out insurance cover - not just a rehabilitation bond - such cover to be sufficient to pay for the cost of a dam and piping to replace the water supply lost.? I think not.

Should half of the water supply be lost and not replaced, it will spell the death knell of any further development - residential and commercial / industrial for the Central Coast. Without water, the region will fail. Can the NSW Govt affaord to take that risk??

The location of the proposed 6 story coal loader facility, 200 metres from the Blue Haven residential area is unconscionably irresponsible and treats the health effects of this operation as being of no consequence.
Fine particulate air pollution will occur, causing respiratory illnesses for all those in proximity to the facility. this is something I suffer from. I live down wind of this facility in northerly and northwesterly winds.
The coal loader is proposed to operate all day, every day of the year. The noise effect on the local populace will lead to additional health issues of stress, possible depression, anti social behaviour and family life degradation. It is amazing that the mine proponents have totally disregarded expert opinion on the health impacts of this mine and its associated facilities.

The mine is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal.
What appears to be the new Kores strategy is to get approval for the mine and then sell the approval to another company to recoup the outlays they have made over many years trying to justify this abhorrent project. The best indication of Kores' intentions can be seen in the listing of their Tuggerah premises for sale. Hardly the action of a continuing business entity.

The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy and has been heavily criticised by the PAC enquiry. There is no reason to believe the mine would provide any of the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised. And any tax benefit to the nation as a whole is illusory. Many foreign companies operating in Australia have been shown time and time again to rort the tax system by engaging in questionable transfer pricing and loan pricing practices, such that the Australian operation never shows a profit. Why should we think Kores proposed Wallarah 2 business would be any different.
Any jobs generated would come from the ranks of currently unemployed miners, who have lost their jobs due to the wind down of Hunter Valley mining operations. The prospect of NEW JOBS - promised by the company is just another exercise in smoke and mirrors.
Approval of this mine would mean that the NSW Govt has completely abandoned the people of The Central Coast Region - and their written promise to ban the mine - no ifs, no buts, no maybes.
Mr Baird, it's time for you to do the morally right thing and once and for all consign this and any similar proposals for mining under the Central Coast water supply, to the dustbin - FOR EVER!!

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.