Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

The multi-facetted impact of mining for coal on this scale (5 million tonnes per year) is overwhelming.
The long term consequences upon the water table, roads and infrastructure's impact on the landscape, pollution (in even the most carefully controlled situations) are all sufficient to disqualify this proposal.
It has already been rejected once by the State Government due to unacceptable impacts on water, ecosystems and heritage sites.
These objections should be supplemented by the consequences of coal burning globally and its polluting impact.
There is a point in time when we must place longer term outcomes above the more immediate ones.
We know now that the importance of securing arable land and quality water supplies for the future and pursuing alternatives to fossil fuel burning are of the highest importance.

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 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.
.. 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.

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 (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
gains momentum.

Yours

I object very strongly to the Wallarah 2 coal mine proposal .

My family home, where my family still lives, is directly above the proposed coal mine and I am very concerned for the subsidence to the home, sheds, fences, paddocks and driveways, as well as the increased risk of flooding.

Kores/Wallarah 2 cannot guarantee that there will be no damage to home, property and the water catchment area, so unless they are able to do exactly that, then this mine should not go ahead.

Furthermore, there should be NO MINES in any water catchment area or near urban areas, and there should be legislation put in place to protect those areas forever.

Mr O'Farrell should keep his promise of "no mines, guaranteed".

My family home is in the area being mined and I object very strongly to the mine going ahead.

There should be no mining in water catchment areas whatsoever.

My family home is in the area being mined and I object very strongly to the mine going ahead.

There should be no mining in water catchment areas whatsoever.

My family home is directly above the proposed mine site and I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

*Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.

*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.

*Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.

*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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.

*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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I am most disturbed that this mine has been refused in the past and Mr O'Farrell is going back on his promise, made prior to being elected, to not have any mines in a water catchment region. At the time he was talking to a large group of local valley residents and it was a public meeting directly related to the Wallarah 2 coal mine proposal. Mr O'Farrell said "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee", so he should honour his promise.

At the same time, legislation should be introduced to permanently protect each and every water catchment region and to ensure mining of any type is not approved close to urban regions.

The rewards do not outweigh the risks to our water and our human life

I am a resident from around the area of impact from the mine and I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

Ground and surface water impacts. The proposal is a significant risk to the security of our drinking water catchment. 53% of the water catchment area supplying Central Coast residents is threatened by this mine application.

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.

Dust and noise. The EIS fails to adequately address dust and noise impacts. The project should be refused based on the health risks associated with air pollution from mining, stockpiling and transporting coal.

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 previously rejected proposal and it remains to be against the public interest.

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. The proposal is a substantial contribution to total carbon emissions and is in conflict with state and federal programs to reduce our contribution to global climate change.

I write with strong objections to the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine, planned for underneath my family home, one of the 245 homes directly affected according to the Wallarah 2 EIS.

I have already made another submission but write here today, on the last day that submissions are due, directly to the committee assessing these submissions and to ask for common sense to prevail.

I could write a lot about what is in the EIS submitted by Wallarah 2 however it is clear to me the local residents do not want the mine here, the local council and others in town do not want the mine here, that health and medical and environmentally experienced people have raised valid objections - and have done so for some years with the various mine and gas proposals - and it all seems to be falling on deaf ears.

I am very concerned that the panel assessing the submissions will be full of mining folk or those which may be inclined to favour a coal mine in this region and not be truly independent. It bothers me that two mining applications have been "okayed" in the past prior to a Labor Minister putting a stop to the first Wallarah mine at the last minute prior to the last State election - regardless of the reports, reviews, multiple submissions and objections.

I do not understand why this mine would be really that much different to other mines before it. At public meetings I have attended in recent years, there have been residents of other regions affected by mining, speaking about their homes and livelihoods which have been damaged by mining and who are still waiting on compensation, years later, some more than two decades. It appears that the residents concerned have had to prove it was the mine which damaged their homes, instead of the mining company ensuring things were fixed promptly. If this mine were to go ahead, what guarantees would Kores/Wallarah 2 provide to ensure that did not happen in this instance? Would local residents have to wait the full length of the mining lease (40 or so years) before the compensation process could begin, and then would it be up to those residents to prove it was the mine which caused the damage?

I would prefer Jilliby Jilliby and Little Jilliby Jilliby creeks to remain as creeks and not dried up creek beds with a couple of ponds here and there as has been advised by the mining company. Native animals drink from and take safe harbour in the areas close to the creeks and would be affected by water loss and/or contamination.

I have been told to my face in the Kores/Wallarah office in Tuggerah, by a company geologist in the presence of at least six other Kores employers and employees, that there will be subsidence and that I should be grateful it won't be "spiked" or "peaked" subsidence but a type of undulating subsidence. That wasn't a very satisfactory response to my questions, nor a satisfactory and appropriate attitude to take with a concerned local resident.

I would like to, in turn, look each and every mining employee at every level of the business in the eye and ask them how they and their families would feel and respond should a similar mine be proposed for underneath or beside their own homes. I suspect if they were to speak truthfully, they would give a very different response to the glossy, positive words they are trying to convince us with.

Just today, the last day for submissions to be sent, a flood watch alert has been issued for the Wyong Valley region over the weekend, here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN36501.html

What would our valleys be like in a flood situation after the mine had been through?

How would our valleys be impacted if an earthquake should occur like it did in nearby Newcastle some years ago? With damage to the earth underneath our feet due to mine subsidence, the resulting additional damage could be catastrophic to homes, human beings and the natural environment. What allowance has Wallarah 2 made for this possibility?

It is clear there will be subsidence, damage and health and environmental issues however the coal company cannot guarantee our water and the natural environment will be safe and I propose for that reason alone, the mine should not go ahead.

However, it seems we should even be sceptical of guarantees after NSW Premier Mr Barry O'Farrell promised no mining in water catchment areas with his "no ifs, no buts, a guarantee" at a meeting in a local park myself and many others attended, just prior to being elected.

I would like to see this mine proposal rejected and legislation put in place immediately to stop any mining company, now and forever, being able to mine in our precious and fragile water catchment regions (any and all of them) and urban areas.

I object very strongly to this proposed coal mine.

The community here, and the people of the Central Coast, have been working for many years to have it stopped for a multitude of reasons and we believed it had been, by the State Labor Government just prior to the election which they subsequently lost. Prior to that election, Mr Barry O'Farrell promised to not allow the mine to go ahead (and signed a paper stating so) if his party won, but it seems he has changed his mind. This is an outrageous move to make after such a public promise.

The environmental impacts of this mine are too great to consider going ahead with such a plan. My family and I live directly over the proposed mine area and it will also run under the nearby creek, which feeds into Wyong River and helps to provide water for many, many people on the Central Coast.

To risk the creeks drying up, the roads, our homes, driveways and paddocks to sink and dip with the subsidence that Wallarah 2 company representatives told me directly would occur (up to 2 metres at least, or more), is too great.

The community doesn't want the mine, Wyong Council does not want to see it here, and local businesses are against it.

It's time to look to renewable energies and other means of providing energy needs, and phase out coal. The coal mined in this proposed plan would not be for our country either, it would be destined for Korea. The number of people they expect to employ is not that great and the annual revenue to the State Government would eventually run out, leaving a scarred landscape and scarred community.

Other communities in Australia have suffered similar "developments" and are damaged and still awaiting compensation many years later. Compensation to home and land owners and farmers is one thing but spare a thought for the birds and animals which drink from the local waters and find food and safety in the forests around, as their homes will be damaged as well.

I haven't even begun to address the issues pertaining to residents further north of here who would have to contend with noise and coal dust.

The Wallarah 2 coal company cannot guarantee that there will be no damage to the people, land and environment and until or unless they can, then all plans for a mine in this fragile water catchment area should immediately be scrapped.

In fact, I believe there should be NO mining in or near a water catchment area, and NO mining in or near a residential or semi rural area AT ALL, anywhere in Australia, and call on the State Government to disapprove this mine application.

I wish to state my support for the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project, with particular interest to see it be approved so that there will be the potential for significant new jobs in the Wyong area and Central Coast generally.

As a regular visitor to the Central Coast I appreciate that it is important that adequate environmental protection is undertaken to maintain the qualities of the area. I have looked at the very large environmental impact report by Kores and consider to be very thorough indeed. It is very clear that they have taken a lot of care in the mine plan and project generally. I am aware that the mine has already been carefully assessed and recommended to be approved, as often noted by the Mayor Eaton. The people who prepared the document are clearly among the best in the field in Australia.

I have some familiarity with mining and coal mining areas, and am very confident that a modern, well planned, deep underground coal mine that is proposed will have minimal impacts. I have seen and heard the grossly exaggerated claims by some in the local area and I consider that such alarmism is unwarranted. there are many people like me in the community that are tired of rantings of uninformed people who really have their own agenda and who are just opposed to coal mining without understanding that nearly all our electricity comes from coal.
I only chose to make a submission after hearing a ranting Alan Jones on the radio today about this project and it is clear that he is very biased and doesn't know anything about the real way that coal mining now looks after the environment and what has been done on this project to protect houses and the water catchment.

Prue Bodsworth
The Wilderness Society Newcastle
90 Hunter St
NEWCASTLE 2300

Director, Mining Projects
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals
Dept. Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001
www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/on-exhibition
21st June, 2013
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT APPLICATION NO. SSD - 4974
The Wilderness Society objects to the Wallarah 2 proposal as it is the same project that was rejected in 2011 because of its unacceptable risks to water resources and risks to wildlife. The state government in early 2011 rejected Wallarah coal mine because of:
* uncertainty around subsidence;
* unacceptable impacts on surface water quality;
* uncertainty around ecological impacts; and
* uncertainty around heritage impacts.
Then Planning Minister Tony Kelly in March 2011 concluded that the project was "not consistent with the principles of ecological sustainable development, including the precautionary principle, and as a consequence is not in the public interest".
Nothing in the new application changes that concept as essentially it is a reworking of the previous application.
We firmly believe that water catchments must be afforded the highest level of protection from pollution. 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.
The valleys above this mine regularly flood as agreed in the proponent's submission posing a huge risk to water quality and ultimately public and environmental health. Some 300,000 people in the Wyong and Gosford LGA's rely upon the 53% of their potable water emanating from these critical valleys.
Kores claim that there will be no effect upon the water supply due to impervious layers between the surface and the mine seam. However, this is not possible there is no such thing as an `aquiclude' rather `aquitards that whilst slow down the flow of water between layers do not stop it. There is a serious lack of data about the hydrogeology of the region.
In addition, 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 Wilderness Society is particularly concerned about the impacts from the mine and risks to water and air quality, noise and blasting on the 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.
In addition to risks to the water catchment the project is likely to:
* cause a reduction of baseflow into local streams
* cause subsidence resulting in potential damage to houses
* high levels of air-pollution in local towns of Blue-Haven and Wyee and also Newcastle
* contribute unacceptable levels of GHG emissions both the fugitive methane emissions from the open-cut as well as the burning of the coal at a coal fire powered station
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
Regards,
Prue Bodsworth
The Wilderness Society Newcastle
[email protected]

I object to the proposal for coal mining under the catchment of the Wyong River and its tributaries. My principal objection is because this catchment provides water which is then pumped into the Gosford-Wyong Water Supply System.

The earlier study by Professor Pell has shown that the underground mine will interfere with the aquifers and result in diversion of the groundwater that feeds into the Wyong River and its tributaries. It is understood that Professor Pell has estimated that the coal mine will divert about 8 Ml of water per day from the water catchment.

The Gosford-Wyong Water Authority reports on its web site that it pumped 10,200 Ml through the Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline between the start of 2013 and 16 June, approx. 170 days. This is equivalent to about 60 Ml per day being pumped from the Wyong River catchment.

The proposed Kores mine, therefore, could cause the loss of 8 Ml or 13% of the water currently being collected for the Gosford-Wyong Water System. The Federal Government and the two Councils have invested $120 million of taxpayers' funds in this Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline to ensure security of water supply for the Central Coast.

It would be a grossly irresponsible decision to approve a private development that causes the loss of 13% of the water currently collected in the Wyong River drinking water catchment and, consequently, reduces the viability of public infrastructure that cost $120 million. Gosford and Wyong Councils have borrowed $40 million to fund their share of the pipeline, so the ratepayers of the Central Coast will be paying additional water charges for many years to pay for the pipeline.

Furthermore, prior to construction of the Mardi-Mangrove Pipeline, the NSW Government placed a cap on new residential development on the Central Coast because of the lack of a secure water supply. If the viability of the pipeline is undermined by the Kores proposal, the NSW Government decision to proceed with the development proposed in the North Wyong Structure Plan will be severely at risk. The Government, therefore, needs to take into consideration the potential loss of housing opportunities for up to 50,000 people as a result of the proposed coal mine.

I object to Wallarah2 coal mine for many reasons.
Primarily because coal mining must cease. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the resultant global warming is already at a dangerous level. Burning fossil fuels has to be arrested.
This proposal already failed to gain clear approval on environmental grounds it makes absolutely no sense to now approve it.
Increased risk to the Central Coast water supply should not be taken.
Subsidence impact on the forest and endangered ecosystems should not be risked. The owl records within the project area reflect the high conservation value of this habitat. Biodiversity of the Central Coast needs increased protection not greater threats and further loss of habitat.

When do we stop?. Do we stop?. What do we really want?. More jobs, more money, a stronger economy?. Or do we hold on to what we have before we totally destroy it? I know it is an old quote but sometimes the simple things in life are often the best.

We have enough holes underneath us already; not to mention the one that we will all end up in......so let us enjoy what we have; some of us need it.

Humans are always discussing the effects of the wild pig upon our land, the kangaroos, the wild horses, the rabbits etc.

My argument is and always will be the animal that is destroying our land the most is ourselves.

With the negatives there are always positives, i.e. employment, improved economy etc......but if we don't start putting our foot down we will have nothing left to put our feet upon.

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

The first is the risk of losing water from bores and from the catchment areas. There is the risk that the water will seep into the ground and also that the water may be contaminated by the mining process.

Also, economically I do not think that it is a worthwhile exercise. I have been told by KORES that the project will yield 1.56 billion over 40 years for the royalities and lease directly attributable to the mine. I know that does not include other monies including taxes paid by workers and the company. However, 1.56billion works out at only 40 million dollars a year so it does not seem that the environmental and health risks posed to the population make this venture at all viable. This money if need could be easily made by subdividing the land or by other means.

The other issues include coal dust. This is not just a old issue. There will be coal dust concerns for both the workers which will be addressed by OH&S I'm sure, but also by the people living nearby where the coal is transported and stock piled.

Also additional noise by the transportation of coal which will happen on a large scale.

When I first arrived in the Central Coast I always felt that the Jilliby area was one of the prettiest part of the Coast. There is no economic value that can be put on asthetics and beauty but they put value into people's lives, make it more uplifting and beautiful. People love to live near beauty and this proposed coal mine will devalue the entire area by an uncalculated amount merely by the presence of the coal industry being there but then by subsidence issues which will affect stability of houses and dams that may be affected as well.

Coal mining does not belong on the Central Coast, we are a growing area why should we have coal in the a beautiful part of our community which provides many people with pleasure but also could potentially be in the future a place where many more people could live without the worry of subsidence issues which will be a worry and concern for generations to come.

See attached

See attached

I am against this Wallarah 2 coal project on the basis of the potential contamination of the underground water table and the polluting effect of burning coal on the global environment. Please cease this project and develop sustainable long term environmentally friendly business initiatives instead.

I wish to register strong objection to mining proposed in Wyong valleys under the existing water catchment areas of the Central Coast Water supply.




Key GROUNDS of objection :

GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS


Approximately 300,000 people reside within the Wyong and Gosford area - a population approximately the size of Canberra.


Over 50% of the water catchment area supplying these residents is threatened by this mine application.

The recently completed $80 million Mardi-Mangrove pipeline is the largest infrastructure project to be completed on the Central Coast in over 25 years. It was funded by the Federal Government and the two local councils to transfer water from the river system to the Mangrove Dam on the escarpment during flood rains. The valleys above this mine regularly flood - this is acknowledged in the proponent's submission.


Kores are unable to guarantee that the mine will not lead to damage to the Central Coast water supply; therefore the precautionary principle should mean that the mine does not proceed.




AIR QUALITY AND DUST
Dust and noise from stockpiling and rail movements is inevitable and will impact on the established residential 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.



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.


The project should be rejected on environmental grounds.


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.


Coal mining will certainly earn revenue for the overseas-owned mining company - and some revenue to the State of NSW; however, such recenue (and jobs) in the short-term is incompatible with long-term survival of the planet.


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.




Note:

The site proposes to mine 36 longwall panels underneath the Wyong State Forest. It will operate for 25 years extracting up to five million tonnes of export grade thermal coal per annum. The site will require three years for construction and will run 24 hours a day once operational. The project will also include coal handling facilities, rail loop and loading infrastructure, ventilation shafts, gas and water management facilities and maintenance and administration buildings.

This project application has previously been refused. In March 2011, the previous NSW Government refused the Wallarah 2 Coal Project application on the basis that the proponent failed to adequately address issues of water quality, ecological, subsidence and heritage impacts.

The proponent, Kores Ltd, has not made any substantial changes to their proposal and it remains to be against the public interest. It should therefore be once again rejected.