Exploring Coalpac Consolidation - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tutor :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Title : Institution : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Coalpac Consolidation Project Coalpac was formed in 1988 as an Australian company involved in coal mining. It has operations near Cullen Bullen in New South Wales. Coalpac is the owner of the Invincible Colliery and Cullen Valley Mine. It operates the two mines under different planning approvals within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Coalpac Pty Ltd became the owner of Invincible Colliery and Cullen Valley Mines in 2006 and 2008 respectively (Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc. 2013). Coalpac Pty Ltd is seeking for a contemporary Project Approval under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to do a consolidation and extension of the coal mining activities and management of the Invincible Colliery and Cullen Valley Mine sites under a single planning approval of the Project. This project will pave way for more mining of coal for another 21 years with the current coal mining authorities of Coalpac and to do some limited extraction of sand deposits. Coalpac is a controversial project because many people in New South Wales have risen to make their objection to the expansion of the project clear. The Director General requires that the project bring a net profit to New South Wales. However, the benefit scale to NSW is lower compared to Coalpac’s benefits. Throughout the life of the project the benefits to NSW via royalties will be a total of $ 144M. Bearing in mind that the project will have a net benefit of $ 1,519M minus employment benefits and costs of environmental impacts the benefits to NSW will remain at 9%. The commonwealth will gain$169M via taxes, which is equivalent to 11%. This means 80% of the net benefits will go to the shareholders of Coalpac (Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc. 2013). This disproportional rate in incomes does not please many citizens, lobby groups and the local communities in the Lithgow region that would have wanted to have a bigger stake in the project. Australia and NSW governments would support the project because of the raised revenue gained through royalties and taxes. The direct social or environmental impacts at the local level are not a problem to the federal state levels. They only consider the production of Green House Gases and this is for the mining operation alone and not for the project’s life cycle. Natural Environment The project is located in Western Coalfields of New South Wales. The lands inside and on the east and north of the boundary of the project have many sandstone escarpments that are associated with the western edge of the Great Dividing Range (Bailey 2012). Land Use The bigger part of the boundary of the project lies on land under Ben Bullen State Forest, a natural resource that has been utilized in the past for mining and forestry. The mines include the Cullen Valley Mine and Invincible Colliery. To add to the Ben Bullen State Forest there are other small lands in the project that are used for purposes of agriculture such as cattle and sheep grazing, rail and road infrastructure and the past and present mining activities. The Castelereagh Highways passes through the Cullen Valley Mine and Invincible Colliery going all the way to through the middle of the boundary of the project. It connects the Golden Highway to the North and the Great Western Highway to the south. The Cullen Bullen Township is close to the boundary of the project. It has a number of residential properties, a community hall, a general store, a school and a hotel (Ashworth 2013). The land use in the entire region has many other coal mining activities, power generation facilities national parks and industrial activities, recreational uses, forestry and agricultural enterprises. The region also has other minor industries that fit in the rural community setting. Bridges Acoustics did the noise impact assessment in the project environmental assessment. The noise impact assessment predicted construction, operational, rail and road, sleep disturbance and fairly low frequency noise impact associated to the project (Mckee 2012). Surface Water WRM Water & Environment Pty Ltd undertook a surface water impact assessment for the project. In this assessment the company reviewed the existing catchments, the revised water management systems for the project, a water balance and a proposed water infrastructure. The project is found wholly out of the Sydney Water Catchment Area. The bigger part of the whole project boundary is drained by certain minor tributaries that flow into Cullen Creek, Jews Creek and Dulhuntys Creek (Coalpac 2013). The major areas of project disturbance have no intersection with the major lines of drainage. The whole catchment area that drains into the water management system of the mine is about 850 hectares in the process of existing operations that account for about 13% of the catchment area of the Dulhuntys Creek. The Dulhuntys and Cullen creek catchment area goes down significantly by the second year. In the eighth year of mining a maximum of 165 hectares of the Jews Creek catchment will be captured. There is no major loss of catchment from the Turon River (Ashworth 2013). Groundwater Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants did an impact assessment with the objectives wanting to study the impacts on the ground water regime as well as those on water users to estimate the quantities of predicted inflows into the areas where the mining takes place in the whole of the life of the project. The conceptual groundwater model of the Coalpac project was based on topographical and topographical information that Coalpac Pty Ltd supplied and also on the results of previous studies of the groundwater regime in the area (Mckee 2012). A major consideration of the impact assessment on ground water was the history of underground mining in the project area and the there is a lot of water remaining in the underground workings of the old Invincible Colliery, the Tyldesley Colliery and the Invincible Colliery a big proportion of which are saturated. For purposes of project assessment, the assumption was that the level of water in the workings has gone up to steady equilibrium where the seepage of water across the seam barrier of coal into the workings of the nearby Ball Bone Colliery is almost equaled by recharge. Soils and Land Resources An impact assessment was done by Ecobiological Pty Ltd on soil and land capability on the project. In this impact assessment, the company reviewed in a broad way the existing information on soil profiling and mapping. It also did another field assessment that included developing 24 soil test pits at various representative areas on the boundary of the project. They identified four types of soil in the project boundary. 70 percent of this included very deep orange clay loam soil. The remaining part is composed of deep dark sandy loam, shallow brown clay loam and skeletal sandy loam. When putting into consideration the stripping depths of top soil appropriate for every soil type and the area of the project disturbance boundary the approximate total volumes of appropriate material for top dressing available is about 2.3 Million cubic meters which is sufficient for the rehabilitation needs of the project. The assessment on land capability for the project revealed that the classification of the bigger part of the project Boundary falls in class V while the rest is in class VIII (Blue Mountains Conservation Society 2013) . The suitability of the environment to agriculture in the project is low and it is similar to the land capability breakdown. Most of the lands that were assessed were found to be in class 4 while the rest is class 5. Every area that that is not proposed for disturbance by mining activities will remain with the existing land capability and the agricultural suitability class as it was in the pre-mining state. So as to reduce the possibility of degradation in within the boundaries of the project and the surrounding lands, Coalpac Pty Ltd is committed to developing a soil and land capability procedure to help in managing its soil resources. This is in consideration of some management and mitigation measures. In these measures there are procedures to ensure the appropriate stripping of top soil materials. The materials should also be stockpiled and worked on during the rehabilitation activities and land reform development (Blue Mountains Conservation Society 2013). Preliminary Hazard Analysis Preliminary hazard assessment was done for the project to ensure that the risks and hazards that can occur as the project is being constructed and operated could be understood and that the recognized risks are managed appropriately. The Environmental Planning Policy 33 Guidelines of the state were used in the determination of the potential fire, toxicity and explosion hazard. S that the risks and hazards identified are managed in an appropriate manner the current management measures and the existing procedures being used for the operations of Coalpac will be carried on (Running Stream 2013). Legislation Concerning the Project Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Coalpac lodged the Application for the project with the Director –General of the DoP in 2010. It was then accepted as an application for a project with the number 10_0178. The Application for the project was the topic of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment that the Director General issued under section 75F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act of 1979 on 16th December 2010 (NSW Government 2013). The project will be under the regulation of provisions in Schedule 6A in the EP&A Act which require that Part 3Aof the EP&A Act remains in operation as far as the project are concerned regardless of its repeal. In a similar manner the SEPPS, determinations, orders and declarations that are applicable to the project will still be used after Part 3A has been repealed. The regulations related to Part 3A which is Part 1 of the EP & A law will still be applicable to the project (NSW Government 2013). Section 75D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that nobody should undertake a project on which Part 3A is applicable unless the project is approved by the minister under Part 3A. Under State Environmental Planning Policy 2005(SEPP Major Development) development for coal mining is a project for which Part3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act applies. The project will be undertaken on land that has been zoned as either 1(a) which is rural or general or 1(f) which is rural or forestry under the Lithgow City Local Environmental Plan of 1994. Under the Lithgow LEP, mining and agriculture are allowed on lands inside zone 1(a) mining with the consent for development and agriculture without the consent for development. In the lands under zone 1(f) within Lithgow LEP development for whatever purpose is allowed when there is development consent. Under clause 7 in the State Environmental Protection Policy 2007 which concerns Mining, Petroleum and Extractive Industries, mining can be done on land on which development can be done for agricultural purposes. Pursuant to Section 75V of the EP & A Act there exist certain authorizations which must be issued in a consistent manner with Part 3A Project Approval if an approval of this type is needed for the conduct of any project that has been approved. Coalpac will therefore seek out part of these approvals incase approval of the project is given (NSW Government 2013). Mining Act 1992 The Mining Act 1992 requires that mining be controlled and managed and that titles forfor access to minerals such as coal be explored. According to the mining Act, the mining or exploration of coal should not be done except when in line with an Authority placed under the mining Act. Coalpac has several mining authorities for its two operations. They include Mining Lease 1455, Mining Lease 1488, Mining Lease 1556, Mining Lease 1557, A 324, A 420, EL 5712 and EL 6007 for Cullen Valley Mine and the Mining Lease 1638 as well as CCL for Invincible Colliery. Most of these mining authorities will need to be renewed in the course of the project (NSW Government 2013). Certain surface mining leases will be needed including the areas contained in the Mining Lease Application 392 and 393, mining lease over private properties inside the project which do not feature in the MLA 392 and MLA 393, part transfer of CCL712 that Ivanhoe Coal Pty Ltd holds, the surface mining lease over the area of CCL712 subject to the part transfer and the potential mining leases for different mining purposes. Section 75V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that if the Approval of a project is issued for that particular project then it is unlawful to refuse to issue an application for a mining lease if that lease is needed for undertaking an approved project and it granted in consistency with the approval. The project mining leases also require the preparation of an MREMP for approval by the Director-General of DTIRIS – MR Environmental Protection (NSW Government 2013). Operations Act 1997 The project is expected to be a planned activity falling under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The company holds two different EPLs for Cullen Valley- EPL 10341- Mine and Invincible Colliery which has EPL 1095. It is meant for applying to the Environment Protection Authority for one EPL in consistence with the Approval of the Project is issued. Section 75V of the EP&A Act demands that an application of this kind cannot be denied if it is needed for an approved project to be carried out and that it should be given in consistence with the approval (NSW Government 2013). Roads Act 1993 The project has proposed different infrastructural items that will intersect with public roads. These items include the building and operation of the bridge over the Castlereagh Highway to connect the operations in the east to those in the west. There will also be a conveyor over the Castlereagh Highway to take coal to MPPS and the crossing will be made for Red Springs Road. Permission under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 from the relevant roads authority will be needed for any type of work within or over the surface or roads that have not been closed (NSW Government 2013). The roads authority for local roads is LCC while that of Castlereagh Highway is RMS. Section 75 V of the EP&A Act demands that this approval should be granted if it is required for undertaking an approved project and that it should be allowed in line with the approval. Other New South Wales Legislation To add to Project Approval under part 3a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the necessary approvals in line with Section 75V of the EP&A Act the project needs to be authorized under the laws of NSW. Coalpac will also be required to seek these approvals as well from the authorities concerned if the approvals for the project will be given (NSW Government 2013). Water Act 1912 In the Water Act, Part five stipulates that before a bore is constructed there should be a license being held. Coalpac has several licenses for monitoring ground water bores. In Section 129A of the Water Act, Part 5 of the Water Act is not applicable to any part of the state that Part 3 in Chapter 3 of the Water Management Act 2000 is applicable in relation to the approvals of water supply works. At the end of the Environmental Assessment the project is the external parts of the state to the third Chapter of Part 3 of the Water Management Act is applicable and as a result of this Part 5 of the Water Act is applicable to the project (NSW Government 2013). It will be necessary to secure Water Act licenses to give permission for taking water from the rocks form every pit that has been proposed unless the porous rock WSP begins before excavation. In such a situation Water Act licenses with adequate share component will be obtained under the Porous Rock WSP for each of the pits. Crown Lands Act 1989 It is also mandatory to have the Department of Lands approve the project courtesy of the Crown Lands Act 1989 for all works within Crown Road Reserves on the Crown Land for the particular project. If the approval of the project is provided, another approval from the DP&I will be obtained for the construction of whatever mining activities needed to be undertaken on crown lands (NSW Government 2013). Health and Safety in Coal Mines Act 2002 The basic objective of this Act is to help in protecting the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 as it relates to coal operations and to obtain special provisions required for controlling particular risks that may arise from coal mining. According to Section 54 of the CMHS Act, the person undertaking coal operations is required to provide information of a planned activity if its risks are high (NSW Government 2013). Clause 49 in the Coal Mine Health and Safety regulation regards high wall mining as activity with very high risks. Before carrying out planned high wall mining operations Coalpac will have to inform DTIRIS –MR because this is a requirement in Mine Safety CTR-001 NSW DPI Technical Reference. If the approval of the project is given, Coalpac will need to obtain the approval of the minister of DTIRIS-MR under the requirements of Section 100 in the CMHS Act for the creation of new disposal areas for tailings and emplacement (NSW Government 2013). Conservation Act 1995 Threatened species are protected under this Act. The TSC Act provides a list and identifies all the species under threat, major processes that are a threat, communities, populations and significant habitats within NSW and gives a framework for protecting them (NSW Government 2013). The TSC Act gives a methodology for assessing the effects resulting from development on the threatened species. The compliance provisions in the TSC Act are not relevant to the project due to Section 75U of Part of the EP&A Act. Nevertheless, there is still another requirement to put into consideration and assess whatever impacts there may be on any species under threat existing within the Project Boundary (NSW Government 2013). A comprehensive impact assessment process on threatened species in line with the requirements of the TSC Act was accepted in the project. Forestry Act 1916 The Forestry Act has the legal framework for the process of dedication, reservation, use and control of the forests of the state, timbers reserves and the Crown Lands meant for forestry and other activities. The Forestry Commission of NSW governs the Forestry Act which is a division of DTIRIS-MR. The project exists on lands set apart for Ben Bullen state forest. Coalpac has made an agreement with Forests New South Wales for mining as well as exploration activities. This agreement will have to be revised if the project is to proceed with the exploration and mining operations inside Ben Bullen State Forest (NSW Government 2013). The development of this agreement will be done with consultation with Forests New South Wales and Endevour Energy for accessing and managing lands inside the Ben Bullen State Forest for the Coalpac project. Stakeholders Engagement with stakeholders by Coalpac Pty Ltd over the project involved holding consultations with local, State and Federal governments, near neighbours, industry the local and aboriginal community and the entire local community. The process of engagement was aimed at the identification of issues among stakeholders relating to the project to ensure that there is appropriate assessment and response given to the issues in a direct way or within the environmental assessment (Coalpac 2013). Coalpac has many stakeholders who have various vested interests in it. Coalpac has a commitment to its engagement with stakeholders in the entire life of the project based on leading practice. Stakeholder engagement includes regular contact with those people who own land around the mines, representatives of major state and local regulatory authorities, the aboriginal community and industry bodies. The community has concerns over the Coalpac consolidation proposal. Coalpac Pty Ltd announced that there would be changes to its proposed ‘Coalpac Consolidation Project’ because of the stakeholder engagement. According to certain local residents, there are many concerns that are still remaining. Environmental groups have provided a vehicle through which people can raise their concerns in a very direct way to those involved in making decisions. Coalpac Pty Ltd has already released a Newsletter No. 2 for the Coalpac Consolidation Project. The May 2011 Newsletter has information directed at recipients about the changes in the company’s project proposal after discussing with several community and regulatory stakeholders to comprehend the important issues of the project (Blue Mountains Conservation Society). Based on the feedback received, the Blue Mountain Conservation Society reveals that the local communities still have grave concerns especially those living at Cullen Bullen. The initial mapping of the open cut mining boundaries showed that they were going to be very near to the village. The new map by Coalpac shows that the boundary has moved back a bit and its place has been taken up by underground mining but generally the mining volume near the village has gone up. Residents are concerned about the property damages due to blasts including the Catholic Church that has already been relocated. These residents understand that there is nobody who can give protection to their homes after the town has been surrounded by an open cut coal mine. Property and land were bought in the area a long time prior to the drafting of the Coalpac Consolidation project (Bailey 2012). Some communities made location specific investments because of the adjacent bushy areas. This will easily disappear around them. The communities living there are concerned that open cut mining will scar their local environment and they fear that rehabilitation will not put this right. If the proposal by Coalpac is approved, then more than 1088 hectares of mainly old-growth forest and wildlife habitats will be destroyed. For the last one hundred years most of the mining has been underground. The possibility of an open cut mine would mean that the township exists within a quarry. Many of the residents work as miners but they don’t want to live within a dust pit which will leave them worried about their children’s health. Environmental groups, the NSW ALP, Local Member for Bathurst, NSW Greens and most of the residents from Cullen Bullen have voiced their public opposition to the proposal because they prefer mining in the areas proposed to remain underground. Residents are also not happy about the Council’s decision to back flip on its promise not to support the Coalpac Proposal (Ashworth 2013). The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales wants the O’Farrel government to declare the Ben Bullen Forest as a state conservation area because the NSW planning Assessment commission had rejected the plans to have an open cut mine in the area. Environmental groups are against the Coalpac Consolidation Proposal. The proposal is all about a huge expansion in mining and its impacts on the environment so t hat the natural values in the area are damaged in a manner that they cannot be redeemed. If approved, the mine will destroy all fauna and flora from the 1088 hectares which have old growth forest and wildlife habitat. Environmental groups would want the Ben Bullen state forest to be added to the conservation reserve system as already proposed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (Mckee 2012). The Lithgow City council voiced its support for the Coalpac Consolidation project. However, an independent planning report in the proposed project objected top its approval because of its potential environmental and health risks. According to the council, its interest in the project is the loss of jobs that may arise if the project is not approved. It also raised the issue of there being other business that is linked directly to Coalpac that are struggling. There are businesses that have already sacked some of their employers because of the downturn. The council believes that Coalpac has is reviewing its plan to make changes to it in line with the issues raised about its proposed project (Coalpac 2013). Government departments, bureaucrats and politicians all had their input on the project. Politicians are divided over the issue with others supporting the approval of the project because it will increase availability of employment. Others are more concerned about the effects the peoject will have on the environment and therefore they oppose it. The state and federal government has shown support for the project mainly because of the economic aspect. The project is expected to increase the mining of coal and this would be a big boost to the economy. The economy of New South Wales would be better off with the consolidated project than without it. The project would also work hand in hand with other related or associated businesses which also have relevance to the economy but in other dimensions (Coalpac 2013). The concern of the state and federal government and some bureaucrats is that these businesses may also be affected if the project does not get approved. The citizens of the Lithgow region look forward to getting the economic benefits of the project through 30 new jobs as well as indirect stimulation of the economy in addition to the fact the job losses and stimulation of the economy will tarry for 21 years when the mine is closed. However, these benefits will not be sustainable because mining is not sustainable. The economic stimulation and the jobs will not be there after 21 years of operation. The proposed mine for coal will not build a self sustaining local economy especially after the closure of the mine. According to the lobby groups in the area, this would be detrimental to the area because the project will directly impact the environment by removing the existing and potential sustainable opportunities for land use including the agricultural and recreational ones. The project also has a proposal of contributing to the local area by establishing a Voluntary Planning Agreement in consultation with the Lithgow City Council so as to fund projects in the local community. However, size for this proposed contribution has not been given and therefore the various stakeholders are skeptical because they cannot assess the benefit to their region via this initiative (Running Stream 2013). Conclusion In conclusion this case study has discussed the proposed Coalpac Consolidation Project. Coalpac Pty Ltd has proposed this project which is expected to expand the area under open cut mining. The project is proposed in a very rich environment in terms of biodiversity. The surrounding environment has settlements and agricultural activities. The bigger part of the boundary of the project lies on land under Ben Bullen State Forest, a natural resource that has been utilized in the past for mining and forestry. The mines include the Cullen Valley Mine and Invincible Colliery. To add to the Ben Bullen State Forest there are other small lands in the project that are used for purposes of agriculture such as cattle and sheep grazing, rail and road infrastructure and the past and present mining activities. There are many state and NSW legislation that apply to this project. These legislations include the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, mining Act 1992, Operations Act 1997, Roads Act 1993, Water Act 1912, Health and Safety in Coal Mines Act 2002, Crown Lands Act 1989, Conservation Act 1995 and Forestry Act 1916. The project will require the clearance of a forest and destruction of other parts in the region. Biodiversity will be lost and the project is bound to have many other negative effects to the environment. As a result of these and many other fears about environmental destruction the stake holders have raised many concerns and objections to the proposal. Environmentalists, lobby groups and various government and non governmental institutions have raised concerns about the proposed project as well. Bibliography Ashworth L. 2013. Coalpac Project Refusal. Bailey J. 2012. Environmental Assessment Statement. Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc. 2013. Coalpac Consolidation Project. Blue Mountains Conservation Society. 31 May 2011. Protect the Gardens of Stone: Say No to Open Cut Mining. Wentworth Falls. Blue Mountains Conservation Society. 5th April 2012. “Mining Company prioritizes coal over kids.” Wentworth Falls. Coalpac 2013. About Us. COALPAC. Mckee J. 2012. The Coalpac Consolidation Project Proposal Rejected. Capertee Valley Alliance Inc.http://caperteevalleyalliance.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-coalpac-consolidation-project.html NSW Government 2013. Coal Mines Safety and Legislation. Division of Resources and Energy, Minerals and Petroleum. NSW Government 2013. Coalpac Consolidation Project. Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Running Stream 2013. “Lithgow Mayor Needs to come Clean on Coalpac Consolidation Project.” Read More