The proposal for the $20 million modification of its original preliminary works project approval for 2.2Mt of total ROM coking coal from NRE No 1 is open for public inspection until September 3.
The NSW Department of Resources and Energy granted approval on July 30 to continue longwall 4 extraction to its completion but longwall 5 was not approved by the department at the time of writing the original environmental assessment.
“The purpose of this modification is to update the preliminary works project approval to include the approved longwalls as well as three additional gateroads,” Gujarat said in its EA.
“The proposed longwall panels, longwalls 4 and 5, represent two relatively small areas of extraction approximately 145m wide with 60m chain pillars and lengths of approximately 530m and 115m respectively.
“Extraction of longwalls 4 and 5 occurs in the Wongawilli seam at a depth of cover between 300m and 340m below previously extracted Bulli and Balgownie seams.”
The majority of the information in the EA had also been provided to the DRE in support of the subsidence management plan application for longwalls 4 and 5.
Information obtained since the time of the SMP is part of the revised EA, including modifications to the proposed longwall layout and the development of maingates 6, 7 and 8.
The proposed modification includes amending the reference to the use of maingates 4 and 5 from exploratory driveages to operational gateroads.
The miner has reportedly stalled an attempt to close its newly commissioned longwall by seeking a $75,000 security for legal costs from a protesting community group.
According to an ABC report, Gujarat asked the Land and Environment Court to obtain a bank guaranteed security from the Illawarra Residents for Responsible Mining to ensure the company’s costs would be covered if the legal action against the mine failed.
Last month, IRRM took Gujarat to court contending that the start-up of longwall mining at the site was realised without adequate notification to the public.
The group has called for a fair consultative process claiming that there was no opportunity for public comment.
