Holla has given a good background to the various methods of subsidence control in the coalfields around Sydney.The present writer notes that in many cases, especially with wide longwall panels, there is not the flexibility to alter the mine layout as there is to some degree with the various pillar extraction methods. For this reason it may not be possible to plan the workings to minimise subsidence and some damage to structures may occur. The cost of repair or the cost of subsidence provisions to minimise damage may be small in relation to the tonnages of coal which would otherwise have to be sterilised. One method of subsidence control which has been in use in the Newcastle area since 1970 is the panel and pillar layout (partial extraction layouts with stable pillars). An extracted panel width of 0.6 times the depth of cover resulted in a maximum subsidence of 115 mm for an extracted seam thickness of 2.2 m.As Holla points out, the extracted panel widths in relation to th depth of cover depend on the particular geological setting. His Fig. 3 shows that the subsidence over a panel width of 0.3 times the cover depth in the Southern Coalfield is the same as over a panel width of 0.55 to 0.6 times the cover depth in the Northern Coalfield.Selective pillar extraction and longwall mining can both be used in the panel and pillar layout. Holla's Figs 2 and 3 are used to estimate the maximum subsidence over an extracted panel of known geometry. Maximum subsidence is related to seam thickness. What provision is made for a reduction in subsidence due to the coal which remains behind in a pillar extraction panel if the pillar recovery is poor? The writer suggests that an effective seam height could be used, based on the actual mining height reduced by a factor to account for the percentage recovery of coal from an extracted panel.