Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I am familiar with this project and believe it to be technically sound. It offers significant socio-economic benefits to the Shire and should not be judged on the grounds of political expediency.

I believe that the project will provide much needed employment and from the information I have gleaned it does not appear that it will have an adverse impact on the environment.

I have the following objections to the proposal:
1) That the water aquifer will be contaminated and exhausted due to mining activities. My household supply is from a bore to the aquifer and I enjoy my water. Water not coal!
2) That the State Premier has not honoured an election promise to revoke the mining licence. I am disappointed with State and Federal politicians not honouring election promises. I voted for the current Liberal state party for the election promise of 'No coal mining on the Central Coast.
3) That habitat for flora and fauna will be destroyed particularly that for migratory bird species.
4) That land subsidence is a result of long wall. This includes the Northern railway and the F3. Will the damage be paid for by the mining company?
5) That the proposed Warnervale shopping centre will be a neighbour of the mine head. Dust and noise pollution will impact on adults and children.
6) That a foreign company is proposing the development. This means that once again Australia will come second financially.
7) That rehabilitation of the mine tunnels is expensive and is unlikely to be carried out leaving a lasting legacy to our children.
In my opinion Kores and the State government have failed to address any of these and other issues. No coal!!

I believe that there has been a significant amount of investigation and planning into the viability of this proposed operating mine. I also believe it would provide great employment opportunities for the people of the Central coast and surrounding areas including flow on to local businesses.

The project has been fully thought thru - is an excellent resource project, with existing infrastructure that can be utilised, as with the existing workforce. This gives the project a huge advantage over similar projects being considered in Australia and the rest of the world. Both NSW and Australia need this type of employment generating projects, and particular ones that provide new inflows of overseas money and tax/royalties for the state and federal governments.

The project should proceed to provide much needed stimulus and job creation at a time when job security and tenure is diminishing in NSW.

My concern, if coal mining is to proceed, is that the water catchment area on the NSW Central Coast will be affected regardless of the reassurances we have received from the "experts". Surely such mining will be damaging to flora and fauna, not to mention the thousands of families living in the area.(My daughter and her family being one of those families). So yes, I strongly object to such mining going ahead. I hope this current NSW government will do the right thing and put the health of our AUSTRALIAN Central Coast residents above the greed of a FOREIGN mining company.

This region of the Central Coast has begun and will continue to have a rapid population expansion. The environmental and health impacts of mining does NOT belong amongst such growth. Approval should not be given to another mining operation that will contribute to carbon emissions and GLOBAL WARMING.

I would like to submit my support for the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project mining development.

I was recently given the opportunity to tour the Wallarah 2 headquarters, where I was able to learn more about the proposed mining development and the impact it will have on our region. Following this, I am confident that the risks associated with such a project are far outweighed by the significant benefits it will bring to our region.

Having lived and worked on the Central Coast for my entire life, I am very familiar with Wyong Shire and surrounding areas. I believe that the Project will bring a major boost to the local economy and hopefully breathe new life into the region.

On top of this, the Project will create a number of new employment opportunities for local residents and drive new skills to the area.

In addition, I am aware of the range of community programs and initiatives that Wallarah 2 supports and was particularly warmed to hear that the Project has offered to provide a free storage facility for Community Advocates - a local charity which provides essential clothing and products to vulnerable people on the Central Coast.

I support growth for the Central Coast and believe that the Wallarah 2 Coal Project will achieve just that - growth for our economy, growth in employment and growth for the community.

I strongly object to mining in our beautiful valley ,you big greedy companies do not seem to get the point of what quality of life means DO YOU !
You come into our worlds and lie and scam your way through to try and make out that what you want to do is safe and wonderful and that no damage will be left behind !
Will you people wake up to your self's and understand that what you want to do is dangerous and life threatening to us and the environment , you only have to see by your past results and now you want to F#$K our area up as well !!
I am not going to say please don't mine here because you have caused more problems with your lies than one can imagine instead I am going to be rude like you and say Take your greed and your lies and smoking mirrors and put them where the sun don't Shine you Arrogant A Holes !!

This submission to the NSW Government should be rejected.
This development would,as a minimum,
1. seriously prejudice the reliability of water supplies to my home/farm, our Valleys & The Central Coast
2. cause unacceptable land subsidence
3. cause unacceptable health risks.
All major State & Federal political parties have agreed this development should not go ahead .

Under no circumstances should this extraction of coal be allowed to proceed! It has the potential to destroy an entire community for the benefit of WHO?
Would the Korean Government / Local Government permit Central Coast Residents/ Companies to mine in similar circumstances in South Korea?
It is worth remembering; "The damage will be remembered long after the price has been forgotten" and people in a position to do something and who don't will be attributed the blame and responsibility for many years to come

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 enormous. The financial cost to taxpayers to provide alternative sources of water supply far outweighs any financial benefit that may accrue from the mine. 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

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 massive and irreversable. The financial cost to taxpayers to provide alternative sources of water supply far outweighs any financial benefit that may accrue from the mine. 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

What are the people in Government thinking of; selling off our precious resources, bad enough to an Aussie company but an overseas one is disgusting. We would not be allowed to even consider doing something like that in Korea. How long must the people of the Central Coast fight this underhanded use of the pristine land and waterways that help to make this area one of the landmarks for overseas visitors to include in their itinerary.
Our family moved up here from Sydney to have a cleaner healthier lifestyle for their children the future of this country what will this sell off to to that dream.

The Wallarah 2 proposed coal mine is intended to operate for 25 years and provide coal, a key source of carbon pollution, whilst it simultaneously threatens to pollute a valuable drinking water catchment. Alternative projects for renewable energy should be target for investment now, not dangerous projects like this one. I completely object to the proposed coal mine.

This venture was proposed and rejected for good reason under the previous NSW government. At that time, it was noted that the proponent failed to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The current proposal is not significantly better. The proposal seriously threatens the quality of water in the Jilliby Jilliby Creek catchment, and in Tuggerah Lakes basin.

The monitoring requirements are insufficient to provide adequate protection, and cannot hope to contain the damage associated with this type of operation.

The threats to protected species and Aboriginal Heritage are also sufficient to void this proposal. Please don't allow this project to proceed.

Yours sincerely,
Thomas Colley

Before Mr Barry O'Farrell was Premier he promised there would not be any coal mines near water catchment areas and I would like him to keep that promise. The Wallarah Coal Project should not go ahead.

A great opportunity therfore giving full support to the project.

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.
C The Wyong Water Catchment was protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950 (Gazette
No. 153 of the LGA 1919, 1950).
C 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.
C 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.
C 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 2ml 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.
C 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.
C 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 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.
C 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.
C 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.
C 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.
C 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
gains momentum.
Yours faithfully

robbie and darlene mayer

Clean water is a basic requirement of life. The proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project puts into jeopardy the drinking water of the 300,000 people who live within the Wyong and Gosford area and 53% of the water catchment area supplying these residents. Tragically the O'Farrell government has decided to completely ignore its election promise that "The next Liberal-National government will ensure that mining cannot occur ... in any water catchment area ... no ifs, no buts, a guarantee." Mr O'Farrell said this whilst campaigning because he knew that water catchments are of vital interest to people. But, once in office, all good sense has been put aside, and he plans to ignore his promise and the need for a safe water supply.

This is a sad and recurring theme in the NSW State Government. Below are reasons that I believe explain why this project should be rejected outright.

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

The site water management is inadequate because almost all management plans are merely observational. Some monitoring plans are not due to be created until two years into the operational life of the mine.

AIR QUALITY AND DUST
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 EIS fails to adequately address these impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.
Short-term exposure to particulate matter pollution can lead to diminished lung function, damage and inflammation of lung tissue, increased mortality rates in children and young adults, aggravation of asthma symptoms, heightened risk of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues.
FAILURE TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project application has already been refused once, based on the proponent's failure to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts. The proponent has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be rejected once and for all.

THREATENED SPECIES
The current EIS lists 37 recorded threatened and migratory fauna species and six vulnerable or endangered flora species within the project site. Many of these species are protected under state and federal legislation as well as international agreements. The key threats to these species include land clearing, change in habitat due to subsidence and alteration of water flow, wetlands and floodplains. All of these threats are possible effects of this project.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum represents a substantial contribution to NSW total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term investment in renewable energy sources has not been adequately investigated. The government should perform a cost benefit comparison of investing the equivalent amount in renewable energy sources.