Wallarah 2 PAC Hearing

2 April 2014 Wyong Golf Club

Presentation by Dr Philip Pells, as a resident

of the Central Coast, and on behalf of the Australian Coal Alliance

“The purpose of this hearing is to hear views on the proposal including on Planning and Infrastructure’s draft assessment report.”

“Do not cross a river if it is on average four feet deep.”

The potential impacts of projects, such as Wallarah 2, on water resources should not be evaluated in relation to average climatic conditions.

This is a class of problem where “the average – the first order effect – does not matter”. “The notion of average is of no significance when one is fragile to variations”.

Nicholas Taleb (2013).

SURFACE WATER

“The Department acknowledges that Jilliby Jilliby Creek has an important role in providing water for surrounding agricultural uses and also forms part of the broader catchment for the water supply for the Central Coast. However, the Department notes that over a third of the project’s proposed 35 longwalls are located beneath the Jilliby Jilliby Creek. This is a very significant coal resource that should not be unnecessarily sterilised.”

Pumping Station

“The groundwater model predicts that total leakage from the shallow hardrock aquifer would be around 0.04 ML/day.

The daily inflow is predicted to increase to a maximum rate of 2.5 ML/day in Year 19 of mining.”

The EIS notes that these calculations do not include flows from the fractured zone that could increase inflows by ~ 0.5ML/day.

FROM THE EIS

The EIS is silent as to where this 2.5ML/day comes from. It implies that it would largely come from water stored in the ground, but this avoids the fact that water stored in the ground comes from somewhere, and is in equilibrium with natural recharge. “There is no free lunch here. It’s very simple – every litre of water your pump out of the ground reduces river flow by the same amount”.

Dr Rick Evans, SKM Australian Financial Review,

24 May 2007

Flo

w M

L/d

ay

FLOW IN JILLIBY JILLIBY CREEK

AVERAGE

25% of the time

FROM THE EIS

Page (iii), Surface Water Impact Assessment states: loss to groundwater from “Jilliby Jilliby Creek Water Source: 270 ML/annum”

This is 0.74ML/day

WHAT IS NOT SAID IS THAT

For 20% of the time since 1972, the flows in Jilliby Jilliby Creek have been less than

0.74ML/day.

THERE ARE DRAWN-OUT PERIODS OF LOW FLOW

Flow records for Jilliby Jilliby Creek do not capture the intense droughts of World War 2 and the time of Federation. Thus the previous figure does not capture the longest periods for which low flows occurred in the creek.

- FROM EIS

GIVEN THE ABOVE FACTS, HOW CAN THE FOLLOWING BE OTHER

THAN WISHFUL THINKING?

“The Department has recommended performance criteria requiring……….not greater than negligible environmental consequences over the great majority of the lengths of significant streams affected by subsidence.”

The truth is that a loss of 0.74ML/day will substantially change the low flow characteristics of Jilliby Jilliby Creek. This will be associated with significant impacts on the groundwater system

in the Dooralong Valley.

What is the flaw in the Preliminary Assessment by the DPI of Surface Water Impacts?

It only addresses averages

GROUNDWATER

DEPRESSURISATION

“For deep groundwater systems, the potential environmental impacts of underground mining are related to strata depressurisation (or ‘drawdown’) associated with drainage of the fractured subsidence zone above extracted longwall panels.”

“The Department is satisfied that the project would have minimal impact on the region’s key aquifers, in accordance with the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, and would not adversely affect the region’s water supply.”

The best way to evaluate the validity of the previous statement is to analyse the

groundwater modelling given in the EIS.

The following is an annotated figure from the EIS showing pre-mining groundwater conditions above the longwalls.

To express this figure practical terms I have located three imaginary bores, called Bores A, B and C.

The pre-mining water levels in the bores are shown by the blue column for each bore.

The next figure shows the predicted groundwater regime at about Year 20.

The EIS-predicted falls in bores are substantial, and indicate significant changes

to the groundwater regime.

Therefore the EIS, as a matter of fact, shows that there will be substantial changes to the groundwater regime above the area of the proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine.

Any other conclusion is simply dishonest to the computations given in the EIS.

These pressure drops within the rock must reflect in pressure decreases within the shallow alluvium within the Dooralong Valley, and these decreases, in turn, cause the decrease in base flows to Jilliby Jilliby Creek which have been discussed.

Contrary to what the DPI Preliminary Assessment states, the predicted impacts are not in accordance with the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy

SUBSIDENCE

245 HOUSES IMPACTED BUT LOCATIONS DELIBERATELY NOT STATED

“The Department is satisfied that the considerable value of the coal resource within the project area would significantly outweigh the costs of any repairs to residences required under the MSC Act. Such compensation payments are funded by the MSB’s levies on coal mining companies, and come at no cost to either the individual property owner, or to the taxpayer.”

“Under the Built Features Management Plan, Wyong Areas Coal Joint Venture would be required to consult with the owners of all affected built features, address potential impacts, and recommend appropriate remedial measures and commitments for repair, replacement or compensation.”

SO WE ARE INFORMED THAT THE ENTITY CAUSING THE DAMAGES WILL ALSO BE

THE JUDGE AS TO APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL MEASURES

HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THIS TO BE

UNFAIR AND IT REPRESENTS A DISPARATE BARGAIN

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

“Overall, the Department has recommended a robust set of conditions of consent based on an adaptive management approach, which……allows for appropriate alterations to mining operations to reflect this improved knowledge.”

Justice Preston CJ has held that,

“in adaptive management, the goal to be achieved is set, so there is no uncertainty as to the outcome and conditions requiring adaptive management do not lack certainty, but rather they establish a regime which would permit changes, within defined parameters, to the way the outcome is achieved.’

Neither the EIS nor the Preliminary Assessment by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure set such defined parameters or explain how this longwall mining project can be adapted.

A salutary consideration

“The great enemy of freedom is the alignment of political power with wealth. This alignment destroys the commonwealth - that is, the natural wealth of localities and the local economies of household, neighborhood, and community - and so destroys democracy, of which the commonwealth is the foundation and practical means.”

― Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace:

The Agrarian Essays