Comments on the Coalpac EA
Dr Haydn Washington, Visiting Fellow Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW;
and Hon., Sec. Colo Committee
My background
• Environmental scientist and writer with 30 year experience of
Wollemi and Gardens of Stone
• Visiting Fellow, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW
• Former CSIRO scientist for 7 years working on heavy metal pollution
and acid mine drainage
• Plant ecologist with decades of experience in area, who did the
original Gardens of Stone Vegetation Survey in 2001.
• Author of 5 books on environmental issues, including ‘Climate
Change Denial’ (2011) and ‘Human Dependence on Nature’ (2012).
• Member of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Advisory
Committee
• Hon. Secretary of the Colo Committee since 1974, and speaking today
on behalf of that group.
• Lead author of 2011 scientific paper ‘The Geoheritage and
Geomorphology of the Sandstone Pagodas of the North-western Blue
Mountains Region (NSW)’ Proc. Linn Soc. NSW, 132, pp. 131-143).
Concerns re environmental and climate science
• Extensive and repeated basic mistakes in
climate science that seek to downplay the
significant greenhouse impacts of the proposed
project.
• Major gaps in flora survey that missed c. 100
plants, and major mistakes in naming species
• Dismissal of risks of acid mine drainage
• Dismissal of concerns re highwalling and
proximity of open cut to escarpment.
Climate science mistakes
• Coalpac EA states on p. x Exec. Summ. that:
‘estimated current global emissions of 3000 gigatonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum’.
• Repeated on p. 119 main report
• Human anthropogenic emissions are in fact c. 28.9 Gt CO2/yr,
as noted by their consultant, PAE Holmes, on p. 110 of
Appendix G
• Coalpac is using the figure for the total atmospheric reservoir
of CO2, not human emissions. By so doing they seek to reduce
the % this project increases human emissions.
• 7 Mt CO2/yr is 0.007 Gt and this is 0.02% of world emissions
not 0.0003 % as repeatedly stated in the Coalpac EA.
• This mistake was pointed out in submissions and yet Coalpac
continues in its ‘Response to Submissions’ to seek to deny
their basic mistake in climate science.
Climate science mistakes - 2
• Confusion over scope 1, 2, and 3
• P. 55 Coalpac response says Australia’s carbon footprint
already includes emissions of scope 2 and 3, yet clearly they
don’t include emissions for a mine that is not yet built.
• It also states ‘any coal bound for export markets (currently accounted
for within the Project’s Scope 3 emissions) will comprise part of
Australia’s annual GHG emissions’
• This is incorrect. The Australian National Accounts data does not
include exported coal. The CO2 in exported coal amounts to 520
Mt/ yr and is clearly not part of the total footprint of 546 Mt/yr
• The proposed increase of 7 Mt CO2 is thus significant and does in
fact represent 1.3% of the current Australian carbon footprint. It
is misleading to refer only to scope 1 emissions (fuel use on site)
in regard to a coal mine. Its greenhouse impact occurs when the
coal is burnt.
Acid Mine Drainage Risk
• Past history of acid mine drainage in
Western Coalfields (e.g. Wallerawang
colliery, which I studied in 1980s)
• Sulphide in overburden up to 0.8% is
quite high. The presence of framboidal
pyrite can lead to a spike in AMD.
• Only leaching of samples over time can
determine if AMD is likely to occur.
This was not carried out.
• AMD is not easily managed and
‘monitoring’ is not enough.
Above: Acid mine
drainage from coal mine
Below: Invincible colliery
borehole
Biodiversity and plant ecology
• Flora survey of site clearly inadequate
• Missed c. 100 native plants
• Missed locating the threatened Persoonia
marginata (one of largest populations known),
which had to be found by a local botanist
• Species list was full of incorrect spellings for
species, indicating no overall quality control
• Response to submissions focuses primarily on
biodiversity offsets. However, these are not fully
‘like for like’ and will not replace the high
conservation value habitat in the project area.
Highwalling
• P. 77 their response notes:
‘Coalpac acknowledges the significance of the sandstone
pagodas, escarpments and cliffs within and surrounding
the Project Boundary’
• However, highwalling will produce only 1.9 million
tonnes of an estimated 70-100 million tonnes of
coal to be mined
• Therefore responsible compromise would be to
abandon proposed highwalling to protect the
pagodas and cliffs that Coalpac says it agrees are
significant.
Distance from open cut to escarpment
• The EA proposes only a 50 metre buffer zone between
the open cut and the escarpment.
• P. 77 of Coalpac Response says Coalpac has been mining
for some years within 100 metres of the escarpment
without impact.
• If 100 metres is safe, why is only 50 metres proposed?
They merely suggest a ‘100 metre risk review zone’,
which is inadequate.
• By the logic of its earlier statement on p. 77, it would
seem prudent to enforce a 100 metre buffer zone
between any open cut
and the escarpment.
Renewable energy alternatives
• The Coalpac EA and Response continue to ignore rapidly
decreasing costs of viable renewable energy alternatives to
coal-fired power.
• Coalpac cites IEA (2011) to argue against renewable energy.
However, the IEA has several scenarios and in their ‘Blue
Map’ Scenario, renewables generate half global electricity in
2050, while coal's contribution is reduced to 12%.
• Ellliston et al (2012) in Australia and Hand et al (2012) in the
USA show that it is feasible to reach 80-100% renewable
energy far more quickly than the IEA suggests (Prof. Mark
Diesendorf, UNSW, pers. comm). The Climate Commission
recently reported that the cost of renewables
was dropping rapidly and uptake accelerating.
• The rationale used to justify the Coalpac
proposal is thus misleading.
Other impacts
• Major impact on the Greater Blue Mountains World
Heritage area in terms of visual impact on a major
visitor gateway to the area.
• Major impact on the proposed GOS2 State
Conservation Area supported by community
environment groups and the Greater Blue
Mountains World Heritage Area Advisory
Committee
• Major impact on the local community of Cullen
Bullen and nearby areas in terms
of dust, noise and visual
pollution.
Conclusion
• The Coalpac EA and ‘Response to submissions’ continues to
promulgate major scientific errors
• There has been no attempt to compromise on any of the criticisms of
the project
• The rationale for the need for the
project is flawed
• The impact of the proposal is simply
too great on many levels –
on climate, on natural values,
on the local community
• The project is the worst way to source
coal, even worse than longwall mining
• The Colo Committee thus
calls on the PAC to deny the
Coalpac proposal.