Mod 2 - Extension of Time

I am concerned regarding Apex Energy's extension of drilling deadlines spanning two drinking water catchments (Woronora and Nepean).

This contravenes Premier O'Farrell's pre-election promise when he said that it is common sense NOT to mine in any water catchment area. The Woronora/Nepean water catchment not only supplies the Illawarra but also the Sydney metropolitan area. Therefore it is crucial that it be free from CSG mining. Because it is "under lock and key" as water catchment, it is out of site and mind of the general public,therefore does not attract such an outcry. THIS WILL NOW CHANGE AS WE IN THE ILLAWARRA ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT OUR WATER REMAINS PURE.

We cannot see that this additional coal seam gas project on top of existing coal mining and a fault line, could be viable.

Please reconsider this coal seam gas project before it is too late. PUT PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS.

Yours sincerely,
Lindley Berrie

See uploaded documents

Dear Sir/Madam

I oppose any mining in Sydney's water catchment area.

This is not a case for "risk management", it is a case for precaution. There is no need to rush to do this mining before systems have been developed that can ensure that our water is absolutely safe. The resources won't disappear if we wait.

However there is every possibility that we will forever regret approving this in haste. Once the water is contaminated it will not be able to be de contaminated. Just look at how Orica has been unable to clean the groundwater plume extending out from Botany despite years of trying. Do we never learn?

The Wilderness Society Newcastle are extremely concerned about the proposal by Apex Energy to drill for coal seam gas within Sydney's drinking water catchments. This is a high risk activity not only for the environment and Sydney's waterways but also for public health. By definition the water that falls within the catchment for a water storage will end up in the water storage and carry any pollutants with it. The coal seam gas industry similar or other oil and gas industries has a high likelihood for spills of untreated produced water, mixing of water from coal seams with freshwater aquifers, overflows from storage ponds and contamination of water by air-borne pollutants such as those caused by flaring that include carcinogenic compounds including BTEX chemicals. We strongly recommend that our water catchments be protected from industrial activities as pollutants created by this industry and disturbed soils will inevitably end up in our water storage.
We would like to call for a moratorium on the exploration and expansion of the Coal Seam Gas industry in Australia.
With reference to this proposal our concerns are:
Risk of contamination of the water table.
CSG has been shown to have detrimental effects on the environment, health and communities. Chemicals and compounds involved with CSG mining can be unintentionally released into the surrounds even without their use by the industry. Many are present in the coal seams and are brought to the surface with extraction. The banning of these chemicals from the extraction process will not stop them seeping into the groundwater or prevent accidental contamination of surrounding areas through accidental spillage of `produced' water, or permeation from evaporative ponds into the groundwater, streams and rivers. Contamination cannot be easily remediated.
Unacceptable risk of damage to the health
As well as the contamination of the water there are toxins released into the air by the gas flares at well sites. There is a possibility that the reduction in pressure when ground water is extracted will cause a drop in the ground/bore water leaving it inaccessible to current bore water users. Other impacts are noise, dust and sound pollution, increased traffic, and destruction and fragmentation of habitat. Considering the recent suggestion that wind farms have a buffer of 2 km from dwellings, it seems that the 200 meters required for CSG is totally unacceptable.

Contribution to global warming is unacceptable.
CSG has been put forward as a transition fuel and is considered to have a lower carbon footprint than coal. Although it is true that the burning of gas is more efficient and releases less carbon than the burning of coal, if the leakage of methane into the atmosphere is taken into account the overall impact over a hundred year period would be only slightly better than coal. The Global Warming Potential of methane is 21 times that of carbon. It is important we don't replace emissions of carbon with methane. Wells do leak. A recent Queensland report found that over 50% of the wells tested were leaking.
If gas is considered a transition fuel to a low carbon economy, why the haste to expand the industry to take advantage of the export markets now? CSG is risky and non-conventional. Surely it would be better to look into other less risky non-conventional methods of power generation that are not reliant on finite fossil fuel reserves. Wind power and solar-thermal power could allow us cleaner and carbon-free energy into the future.

We strongly recommend that you do not allow coal seam gas drilling in Sydney's water catchment and introduce legislation for the water catchment of critical town and agricultural water supplies throughout NSW.

Prue Bodsworth
The Wilderness Society Newcastle

SUBMISSION TO THE ENQUIRY ON APEX MINING REQUESTS TO MINE FOR COAL SEAM GAS IN SYDNEY'S WATER CATCHMENT AREA

14 September 2012

Dear Committee

As a Camden resident I am concerned that there will be stress placed on the Macarthur landscape due to further housing, increased long wall mining at Douglas Park/Appin Mine and csg mining in the area and in the catchment as proposed by Apex Mining.

The issues are
* Mining for methane will be allowed in the Sydney Water Catchment, which is kept pristine by high fencing. If APEX mining in the catchment is approved its directors state that 150 producing wells are planned. Sydney Catchment Authority will be under pressure to both approve and monitor mining activities in the catchment whilst its first priority according to its charter is to guard Sydney's water supply.

* CSG mining uses clean water for mine establishment as well as recycled mine water - in Australia water is in short supply. CSG miners use water licences to take water from rivers feeding into the drinking supply. CSG mining creates large amounts of dirty water with problems for removal and disposal of contaminated water, creating a risk for clean catchment water.

* Fugitive methane gas and health concerns felt throughout the community, in particular the Retired Miners Association. Long wall coal mining also leads to issues with methane, its capture, use, leakage, and volatility. BHP operates a methane plant at Appin. Those experienced with it are most scared of it. Methane has been seen bubbling through the ground at Thirlmere (Camden council environment officer)

* environment preservation for wildlife. CSG mining requires hydraulic fracturing of rock and environmental destruction. Macarthur Bushwalkers, the Waddi Waddi people Whale Cave, Rivers SOS, and Scenic Hills have noted damage.

* The catchment provides drinking water security for Camden, Macarthur with increasing populations of young families. Population expansion is planned for Macarthur, 240,000 residents and rising.

* Due to their geographical location, the APEX and AGL works affect the security of drinking water for Camden, Macarthur, Penrith, the Blue Mountains and Sydney. See Sydney Water Authority maps of area.

* At the same time as CSG mining is introduced in Camden, long wall mining is also expanding at Appin and Douglas Park. BHP Appin has announced an $833M expansion. There is overlap in the geographical location of long wall mining, csg mining, the water catchment, and treatment facilities.

* There is a loss of planning consistency between State and local government. There appears to be a feeling of powerlessness amongst residents with regard to local planning issues - at the local government elections councillors claimed they had no power over what happens in our community. Nevertheless, local government still has the ability to plan housing while the State Government plans industry. For example, housing is planned at the El Caballo Blanco site on Camden Valley way, where csg mining by AGL Phase 3 is also planned.

* There is a fear of loss of amenity and hence investment by home owners if water supply is depleted, or the local environment is contaminated by either dirty well water, salts, or methane. Local residents, due to AGL mining, will be forced into placing increased dependence on piped water.

* There appears to be insufficient community consultation about expansion of mining in the area. A perceived conflict exists between what the council sells to residents as a rural community, whilst the State Government is treating Macarthur in particular Camden, which has always been a sleepy rural town, as an industrial area. As a result, residents feel misled. Will there be compensation paid for loss of house value, loss of amenity (noise and water pollution etc).

* There is a lack of trust, both from the point of view of councillors and residents, in local government's ability to protect local residents from the onslaught of industry. There is a lack of trust in what state and local governments say, as they are reliably inconsistent.

* After the Thirlmere Lakes enquiry, there is a perceived lack of trust in consultants particularly regarding independence. Locally used consultants report to both the mining industry, the state government, and the water authorities. Other independent consultants, eg Professor Pell are not heard. Input from local residents who have seen water loss is not used. There appears to be an inability of the representatives of the State Government authorities to listen to local concerns, and take anecdotal evidence into account and to incorporate local concerns when expressed, into agreed outcomes. There needs to be perceived consultation.

* Lack of knowledge. The example of Thirlmere Lakes and Long Wall Mining poses issues for community consulting and suggests a lack of knowledge that urges caution. The water in Thirlmere Lakes has gone for good. The causes are stated to be drought alone, but a long wall mine exists close by and has leaked water. Rivers SOS are not pleased with the consultation process. I am not a member of this group, just an observer.


* There is distress felt that Camden is no longer rural, but has become industrial.


I am further concerned that csg mining by APEX in the catchment will further risk degrading the Sydney water supply at the source (in the catchment, before reaching dams). There is a lot of correspondence between APEX and regulators in the first application. As a result I cannot but feel that APEX mining in the catchment for CSG is an unnecessary risk being taken by the State Government, that most people would not be willing to take for a short term gas supply.



Preamble

Risks of CSG Mining
There are many risks to CSG Mining. The most sensible statement I have read is by Dr Alan Randall of Sydney University and CSIRO which states

We don't understand the risks, going slow on CSG makes economic sense. CSG is trapped in pores inside the coal and held in place by large volumes of water. .. it produces high volumes of waste water. ... Fracking introduces liquids and chemicals under high pressure to crack the coal seam and surrounding rock and may be an additional source of contamination. CSG has a wider footprint on the environment than the modest wellheads suggest. It will impact rural and community ways of life and reduce agricultural productivity everywhere it operates. There are many unknowns about site specific impacts of csg on soil and aquifers and the extent of contamination in the waste water. But these unknowns are dwarfed by the unknown cumulative effects.

BACKGROUND ISSUES TO THE APEX MINING CONCERNS

CSG Mining in Camden
AGL is in the process of building and operating a large number of CSG mines in Camden (134) and a similar number are proposed at Camden North with a third phase along Camden Valley Way proposed at the El Caballo Blanco site. These works will by their nature extract water from rivers during well drilling and return contaminated waters from wells to the environment for disposal. Impacts from methane gas and other contaminants will be an ongoing issue requiring monitoring and control. AGL states that fracking will occur. (AGL website).


Population Expansion in Camden
Camden is "the new place" to live for young communities, with new developments from Camden South and Bridgewater Estate, to Oran Park (9000 new homes) and along Camden Valley Way (Harrington Park), where families are encouraged to invest their life savings and live a good life. Camden Council has mooted a new housing estate on the site of the old El Caballo Blanco. New areas are planned from Menangle, Camden South, Harben Estate, Grasmere, Harrington Park, Mt Annan, Narellan, Narellan Vale, all along Camden Valley Way to Prestons, Denham Court, Oran Park (9000 houses), Catherine Fields and so on.

The housing types range from semi rural with homes on acres worth in excess of $1M (eg Pepperfields Estate) to more modest and built up family areas (Mt Annan). Sydney Water cites 240,000 people depend on the Macarthur Water Supply and this number is growing.

Water use and Climate in Camden
It is a fairly low average rainfall area, averaging 783.7mm, and it gets hot in summer and cold and frosty in winter. It is typically dry and fairly flat being a valley, and is subject to occasional flooding. Typically there are lots of small waterways, dams and ponds, with mosquitos, birds (ducks, grass parrots, rosellas, galahs, cockatoos black and white) and wildlife that go with them. Small farms use water for gardens and stock. Dams are replenished by rainfall and run off. There are still tracts of intact Cumberland Plain around Camden and Cobbitty.

Camden township has a small tributary of the Nepean flowing through the equestrian centre which flows on to near Camden airport where the fishing competition is held. Occasionally people are seen swimming there. A waterway runs under the overpass to Elderslie. Little waterways like this are typical.

Camden, Wollondilly and Campbelltown councils have worked to clean up local rivers and now 3 platypus have been seen in the Georges River (Macarthur Chronicle last week) which got 3400 "likes" on Facebook.

The Amenity of Camden
Camden is quoted as having `rural' amenity and many people moved this way for just such a lifestyle.

Camden Council's website states:
Camden is an area steeped in heritage, adventure and natural charm. Located just 60km south west of Sydney, Camden boasts that rural feel of yesterday, with all the luxuries and conveniences of today, offering locals and visitors the best of both worlds.

Camden Council aims to enhance the lives and well-being of its residents and offers exceptional services and programs to the community. From waste disposal to Development Applications, or community events to grants and initiatives, Camden Council strives to assist its community in a professional and positive way.

The Camden Council logo is a visual expression of the Camden area. The Platypus image is a unique and modern symbol representing the serious efforts made by Camden Council towards meeting our goals of becoming an environmentally, culturally, socially and economically sustainable community.

Nearby Catchment Towns
Nearby in Campbelltown, we have Mt Annan Botanical Gardens. Just over the ridge, we have Mt Hunter, Oakdale, the Warragamba Dam, and to the south the dams of the Sydney Catchment, the Cataract, Avon, Cordeaux and Nepean. There are still large beef farms on the Northern Road, there is Belgenny Farm, home of Elizabeth Macarthur and there is horticulture with vegetable growers including large farms at Douglas Park and Razorback. There is also a strong equestrian community with many riding establishments and an equestrian centre holding high level competitions. Large nearby councils are Campbelltown and Wollondilly further south.


Long Wall Coal Mining from the south coast reaches into Camden
Mining at Appin and the South Coast has proceeded for many years providing employment to the area. In the early part of this year Camden has come into closer proximity to long wall coal mining - BHP have expanded their Appin Mine and built Shaft 6 for air extraction at Douglas Park close to Menangle. They are spending more than $833M (see BHP website) to expand at Appin, giving some south coast miners more work. While the employment was welcomed the footprint of the long wall mine has expanded closer to residential, and historically significant areas of Camden, such as Elizabeth Macarthur Farm.

CSG Mining
AGL have extended the mining of coal seam gas from early exploration at Cawdor to the present situation with a large production plant at Rosalind Park. They have 134 wells near Camden and Menangle, including under the Nepean River (photo in SMH article) at Menangle Raceway. There is a CSG mine on Belgenny Farm, home of Elizabeth Macarthur. AGL plan North Camden Phase 2 at Currans Hill, Denham Court, Raby, Varroville, Narellan, Glenlee and so on. We have a well in Mt Annan Botanical Gardens I believe. AGL has plans for Phase 3 at the El Caballo Blanco site - I heard about this at the local government election booth, when people were asking councillors what it was all about.

How close are CSG wells to housing?
As I understand it from the literature available, a csg well needs to be located only 5m from a residential dwelling. (Paper, 2004 cites a radius of 5m, 10m, and 20m for differing circumstances.) Without knowing any better, this seems close. I don't know if this is still current in the area.

In Queensland in 2011 Anna Bligh announced she would introduce new restrictions on coal seam gas extraction and the whole mining industry, freezing exploration permits within two kilometres of towns with a population of 1,000 people or more. The proximity to residents of mining is an issue. I don't know if this is current.

I would like to know if wells can be located so close to housing.

The Water Catchment
The Upper Canal system supplies through a series of canals aqueducts and tunnels and supplies 680 megalitres per day of water from the metropolitan dams, to the Prospect Reservoir. AGL will require 30 Megalitres for each of its 3 phases of construction of its CSG operations in Camden. It was suggested that this might come from the Cataract River directly before going to the Macarthur Treatment plant at Broughtons Weir. Of more concern is the amount of groundwater issuing from the wells, with wells producing 20MegaL of water initially reducing to 5 MegaL after 5 years.

Camden's water
Camden's water supply (Sydney Water Authority Map) comes from the Cataract River at the Broughtons Pass Weir also and travels to the Macarthur Water Treatment Plant built by Transfield and located at Appin, the same location as BHP's long wall mine. I am not sure how many megalitres travel to the Macarthur Treatment Plant for Camden. From the map supplied by SWA it appears that the water flowing to Camden is separate from the water flowing to the Prospect Reservoir. The Macarthur Water Treatment Plant supplies 240,000 people according to the SWA Brochure.

AGL requests a 30 Mega Litre licence to extract water for its Camden project and another 30 MegaLitre licence for Camden North. It most likely comes directly from rivers adjacent to the wells according to the SCA, the Nepean and the Cataract.

Consequently, where in the past there has been a land use buffer between the catchment, mining and rural parts of Menangle and Camden, this buffer is reducing in size and the three activities are coming into conflict.

Water Issues
Evidence of Thirlmere Lakes
There is local hearsay evidence that water in the Thirlmere Lakes disappeared through a combination of Long Wall mining and drought over a period of 30 years. Many local mining people will tell you about the lost water which has poured into and through shafts in the Appin Mine at Tahmoor, directly opposite the Lakes. RiversSOS also cite evidence from graphs produced by Professor Pells that the loss of the river is a recent occurrence, as despite previous droughts the Thirlmere Lakes refilled. Rivers SOS have written a lengthy document about lack of organisation and lack of consultation on the issue. The fact is, after the rain returned, the Lakes have not filled. (See RiverSOS) I am not a member of this group, but interested. The Sydney Catchment Authority state on their website that Thirlmere Lakes were lost due to drought, but common sense suggests that this is not the only cause. Sydney Catchment used Parsons Brinkerhoff as consultants to the SOS group on the matter and say the cause was drought.

Perceived Independence of Consultants
AGL also use Parsons Brinkerhoff as consultants. Exstrata is also one of their clients. I have read the Parsons Brinkerhoff Groundwater AGL assessment model for Camden and don't understand it all, but that is not my job. Although not a scientist it seems from the PB report that groundwater issues are unclear for Camden, nor are the impacts of csg mining here, but there are geological faults in the area and a variety of rock and soil through which wells and pipelines will go so controls will be very important.

Pipelines, Water Courses, Groundwater
Pipelines (source; AGL reports) are planned to travel close to, in and under water courses and supplies. I am concerned about the Nepean River, under which some CSG mines go (near Menangle), and that groundwater contamination as outlined by CSIRO (see CSG fact sheets) will inevitably occur. AGL state that fracking will occur in Camden. Also, that the PB report suggests a higher dependence on dam water for our drinking and general use might be required if groundwater is compromised.

Camden Council advisors who have done the work on the rivers for the platypus, are concerned that contamination of all the little bits of surface water locked in dams and rivulets such as pass through the equestrian centre, will be difficult to monitor. Also chemical effects on mosquitos will impact supply of food for birds and wildlife (including pets who drink from rain and ground sources).

I can see these water use and contamination issues link together; surely they must.

We are a dry area normally, and cant afford to lose or contaminate water from the Nepean or these little surface water rivers and streams that pop up after rain.

Monitoring and fairness of reporting
At the same time, stories about the Thirlmere Lakes, and leakage from long wall mining, raise even greater concerns about impartiality, the independence of consultants and the willingness of investigating committees to take the input of local residents who have seen things with their own eyes, seriously.

APEX Mining Requests to extend permissions to Mine in Darkes Forest
I have read the inputs to the previous request by APEX to mine in the Sydney Catchment. In recent media releases the owners of the APEX leases admit they plan to mine CSG in the catchment and across 150 wells. They often cite use of unused fire trails and limited damage. Bearing in mind the impacts of csg mining on local surrounds, the need to truck water out if contaminated, and the need to drill deep into rockbeds to source the gas, including the use of fracking, and from the CSIRO fact sheet the suggestion that wells on average in Queensland (where there is less water) generally produce 20,000 L of water, it is difficult to see how APEX can carry out its business, whilst the SCA keeps to its word.

I apologise for the roundaboutness of all this, and the verbal overload. With more time I would streamline my points, and if you have read it all thanks.

Apex Energy must not be granted an extension of time or any change to its conditions. Its gas Exploration Licence must be allowed to lapse and extinguish as Apex is unable to manage its exploration under its original Licence due to its incompetence (lack of experience, management skill and lack of financial resources). Apex's application to extend and modify under Part 3A will allow Apex to increase the damage it will do to our environment by stealth, instead of asking for a rigorous scientific enquiry into the full scope of its gas and petroleum extraction at one time. The surface area and below ground volume Apex will damage and extract resources from are much more valuable in their current state than either the current income or the future value of all the energy and resources proposed to be extracted by Apex. The subject land and resources under the Apex Applications should be conserved for the future. The conservation of the subject land should be as National Park, State Conservation Area, Nature Reserve and Water Catchment. Privately owned land can be rehabilitated and added to the National Estate.
Apex has been unable to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration of the global warming greenhouse gasses it proposes to extract. It does not even propose to capture all the gasses it will extract - some Global Warming Greenhouse Gasses will be released to the atmosphere as an inevitable part of Apex's activities. Now is the time to put Apex out of its misery and say "No" to Apex's extractive activities.


INCOMPETENCE Apex Energy is an incompetently managed company. It's Exploration Licence will expire on 2012 September 22 before it satisfies the originally granted Licence Conditions.

Apex Energy NL's gas Petroleum Exploration Licence must be allowed to lapse and extinguish as Apex is unable to manage its exploration under its original Licence due to its incompetence (lack of experience, inadequate management skill and lack of financial resources).

Apex has been unable to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration of the global warming greenhouse gasses it proposes to extract. It does not even propose to capture all the gasses it will extract - some Global Warming Greenhouse Gasses will be released to the atmosphere as an inevitable part of Apex's activities.

Apex has not shown any enthusiasm to counter or reduce global warming. This is another example if its incompetence.

Noise of drilling will increase community antagonism to CSG development.

It has inadequate finance - Apex gives away its exploration rights in exchange for Ormil Energy paying for test drilling.

Apex has chosen Ormil as its partner, leaving Ormil to manage angry residents and environmental activists living in Sydney's drinking Water Catchment.

Ormil Energy NL did not use an acoustically treated or "silenced" drill rig. The noise of drilling was enough on its own to antagonize residents in Oakdale in 2012 March..

Apex has not used world's best practice to prevent fugitive emission of methane and coal seam carbon dioxide or other pollutants nor did Ormil Energy reinject its drilling mud and produced water from the drilling operations so far. It is possible Apex does not even know what world's best practice means.

Apex Energy has not guaranteed to prevent further degradation of the water catchment environment after its exploration and development is over. Apex does not even have an irrevocable (Bank or cash) guarantee in place to cap each of its wells - now projected at 150 to 200 production wells. An estimate from the USA is between $30 000 to $250 000 to cap each well. A guarantee could offer Apex a financial incentive to avoid passing on the environment rehabilitation cost to future generations. The guarantee has to be at least $4.5 million to $50 million. Apex's current guarantee is $25 000 for PEL454, which is woefully inadequate. Such a small existing guarantee does not cover even the lowest estimate of the rehabilitation cost of one well.

Apex and Ormil keep saying they will use cement to seal their wells. Concrete using cement and other material in the well hole is used to make concrete to prevent gas escaping from wells. However we know there are two types of concrete - concrete with cracks and concrete that hasn't cracked yet. The low quality concrete proposed to be used by Apex is more likely to crack than concrete made with the right amounts of cement, sand, aggregate and water.

The cost to repair cracked well capping in future should allow for inflation, increasing the size of the Government imposed irrevocable guarantee. Five percent to 6% of wells fail by leakage during drilling and 50% fail after 25 years based on American experience (see also Schlumberger's reports of worldwide drilling experience). Apex's incompetence is demonstrated by their repeated assurance that they only use cement to seal their wells.


Assurances from Ormil and Apex Energy that their exploratory well to the Bulli Coal Seam in Sydney's water catchment has not damaged the environment are self-serving. Neither company has bothered to measure baseline environment data - they have inadequate data on environmental methane, background noise or water pollution. Nor have they documented the mass at birth of babies within a 25 km radius of their proposed wells over the past few years. "Incompetent" is a word to justifiably describe the miners' assurances and claims of concern to run a well managed project.

Apex is so incompetently managed that they still want to apply for an economically unjustified expanded project at a time of slow economic growth and low gas prices on the export market.

ENVIRONMENT DAMAGE

Apex's application to extend and modify under Part 3A will allow Apex to increase the damage it will do to our environment by stealth, instead of asking for a rigorous scientific enquiry into the full scope of its gas and petroleum extraction at one time.

The surface area and below ground volume Apex will damage and extract resources from are much more valuable in their current state than either the current income or the future value of all the energy and resources proposed to be extracted by Apex.

The subject land and resources under the Apex Applications should be conserved for the future. The conservation of the subject land should be as National Park, State Conservation Area, Nature Reserve and Water Catchment. Privately owned land can be rehabilitated and added to the National Estate.

Apex has been unable to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration of the global warming greenhouse gasses it proposes to extract. It does not even propose to capture all the gasses it will extract - some Global Warming Greenhouse Gasses will be released to the atmosphere as an inevitable part of Apex's activities.

Just because a previous NSW Government did something wrong (namely granting an exploration licence) does not mean the current NSW Government can get away with granting an extension to an exploitative company unable to manage the environment it proposes to damage.

The particular local environment that must be considered by the Minister if an extension is granted is Shale Sandstone Transition Forest [SSTF] and rainforest. Particular species under threat by the exploration include the greater glider and the Powerful Owl.

I used to walk and picnic in the land under the current application so I speak with authority when I write that it has a high nature conservation value. Its natural values should be saved for future generations.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Our NSW Government has not yet imposed an irrevocable bank or cash guarantee on Apex (or any other coal seam gas explorer) for the costs of adverse health effects imposed on the community by CSG exploratory drilling and production. An as yet unpublished study from Cornell University (currently under peer review) has found there is a 25% increase in underweight babies at birth from mothers within a 2.4 km radius of a gas well. Despite assurances that CSG is safe because there are as yet no proven deleterious health effects from CSG drilling and production, the evidence is just starting to come in.

This government can regulate the CSG industry with guarantees, by imposing liability for damages on the companies doing the damage and requiring the companies and their customers to rectify all the damage they impose on the Australian community.

Our NSW Government has not imposed zero emission targets on the Coal Seam Gas drilling companies. There are no monitoring requirements imposed, nor any pollution limits imposed when the measurements are taken. And there are no remediation actions required after the damage has been done.

Our NSW Government has not even asked for carbon dioxide and fugitive methane (greenhouse gas) capture during gas exploration and production. Neither our Australian nor the NSW Governments have asked for carbon dioxide capture from the burning of methane (the main constituent energy producing gas in CSG, itself a potent greenhouse gas 105 times more effective at trapping heat in Earth's atmosphere than carbon dioxide, over a 20 year period). Neither Government has asked for the sequestration of that carbon dioxide after its capture. The best place to sequester the carbon is underground. Techniques to sequester the carbon are available to us now - leave it underground. Do not extract CSG at all.

Using less energy is a more practical, less costly way (than extracting fossil methane) to a sustainable future. Energy conservation is cheaper, immediately available, requires less capital expenditure and achieves enough results faster to avoid the need for coal seam gas mining.

I say "NO" to Coal Seam Gas mining and this Application in particular.

STOP CSG WOLLONDILLY

[email protected]

I believe it would be a great mistake for the NSW government to go along with fracking without looking at the side-effects
already seen in the USA, Europe and Queensland.

A lot of observations exist to make one wary of a technology which is hugely wasteful of water, forcefully introduces chemicals and gases into layers where the groundwater can be contaminated. Human survival depends on unspoilt water and this is the supreme value, not measured in dollars.

Alart from these major objections, has anyone seen photos of
beautiful country landscapes after that industry has had its way? I have and it's enough to make you cry.

Your responsibility in our democracy is to safeguard our essential values, not to promote money-generating but destructive technologies

Attention: Director, Mining and Industry Projects
Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


Objections to the Modification Proposal 07_0103 MOD2 from Apex Energy N.L.

I strongly object to the proposal from Apex Energy to renew and indefinitely extend their 2009 major project to undertake coal seam gas operations in the water catchment areas of the Northern Illawarra.

Current Government policy is no doubt influenced by royalty interests, however among qualified scientists there is still a high degree of uncertainty regarding coal seam gas mining and therefore risk taking in the catchments and high value conservation lands is unacceptable. It should be noted that the designated "special areas" have already suffered significant damage as a result of coal mining.

The likely impacts of coal seam gas operations have been widely reported and documented. Detailed and informative accounts are found in the submissions to the NSW Parliamentary Coal Seam Gas Inquiry. For example:
(i) Submission No. 330, Dr Stuart Khan
(ii) Submission No. 457, Northern Illawarra Sustainability Alliance
(iii) Submission No. 552, Stop Coal Seam Gas Illawarra

At a public rally before the last election, the then Opposition Leader stated that the next Liberal and National Government would "... ensure mining cannot occur in any water catchment area and that any mining leases and exploration permits will reflect that common sense. No ifs, no buts, a guarantee."

On December 1, 2011 the Premier told 2GB's Alan Jones: "I don't intend to allow -- particularly after the drought we went through over a decade -- mining or any other activity to threaten water resources." He also stated that "... exploration licences have been granted, in some cases permission to mine has been granted, in areas, frankly, that should never ever have been on the list."

Surely the catchment lands supplying water to Greater Sydney and the Illawarra should never have been on that list?!

Community opposition to coal seam gas mining in the catchments is growing fast, with large rallies and a petition that now has more than 30,000 signatures. Wollongong City Council, Sutherland Shire Council, Campbelltown City Council and many other councils in NSW are opposed to coal seam gas development. Various towns and districts are declaring CSG free zones.

As one of the popular statements taken up by crowds of NSW residents at anti-CSG rallies goes: "If you can't drink the water, who needs the gas?"

Specific concerns and objections to the current proposal are given below.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Diana Covell
Stanwell Park NSW
14/09/2012


I have not made a reportable political donation.

I request that my name is withheld.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections to Modification Proposal 07_0103 MOD2 from Apex Energy N.L.

1. Lack of a required supporting Petroleum Exploration Licence

The 2009 major project approval granted to Apex Energy depended on Petroleum Exploration Licences (PELs) 442 and 444. Apex failed to renew PEL 442 in February of this year and subsequently submitted an application for a new licence, PEL 138, to replace the lost PEL on March 12. In the interim, on March 5 the Aboriginal Land Council submitted competing prospecting application, PSPAPP 58.

Acknowledging the need for underpinning Petroleum
Exploration Licences, the 2009 project approval states "The drilling and operation of petroleum wells may take place for 3 years from the date of this approval or until the expiry date of Petroleum Exploration Licence No. 442 or Petroleum Exploration Licence No. 444, whichever is the sooner, unless otherwise agreed by the Director-General."

The current modification proposal is for an approved major project that no longer has a required supporting PEL. The application cannot be credibly assessed in the absence of that required PEL. The public can have no confidence in an assessment and regulatory system that would allow major projects to be assessed in the absence of appropriate licences.


2. Failure to meet the 2009 major project approval commitments

The current modification application offers reasons for the failure to meet the major project commitments, however they are not in accord with the public record of events. The loss of social licence for coal seam gas development in NSW and the consequential uncertainty in Government policy did not effect Apex until early 2012, some two and half years after the major project approval. No regulations have been introduced by the O'Farrell Government that would prevent or hinder the 2009 project. The decision to seek add a further bore without adequate resourcing reflects poorly on their judgment. The bulk of the work would have been carried out by consultants. Its difficult to accept that the application process for the additional bore could hold up progress on the major project, or be allowed to hold up progress on the major project.

Apex were unable to meet their project commitments primarily because of limited resources and experience and an inability to satisfy the requirements of the Sydney Catchment Authority, including the Neutral or Beneficial Effect (NorBE) on water test, in sufficient time. The inability of Apex Energy to drill any of the 15 bores approved in 2009 unequivocally establishes that they lack the required resources, capability, experience and judgment to meet the commitments and responsibilities of a major project. That their 2009 project application was approved reflects poorly on the assessment and consent authority.

3. Apex Energy is no longer the project operator

Financial difficulties encountered by Apex Energy have resulted in Ormil Energy becoming the primary project partner and project operator. Given the failure of Apex Energy to meet any of its project approval commitments and the change of ownership, a new project application is required.

4. The need to consider production

The attitude Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) justified its 2011 approval of an additional bore to the 15 approved in 2009 by emphasising its conviction that the assessment of an exploration proposal does not need to consider a subsequent production project and that approval of an exploration proposal has no implications for a production project application. Commercial exploration is an investment made in the anticipation of production revenues; exploration is the first phase of production. The 2009 major project is not in fact an exploration project, its is a mapping project for a subsequent production field - as the modification application indicates. Coy exercising of language does not change the nature of the application. The knowledge of the presence and character of gas in the Southern Coalfields has accumulated since coal mining began in the late 19th century. While the blinkered position of the PAC serves the interest of the proponent and the royalty corrupted judgment, policies and regulations of the Government, it lacks credibility and undermines confidence in the PAC as an independent assessment body. The community deserves better. This abdication of responsibility by the PAC is heightened by the critically important location of the proposed project - the Schedule 1 Special Areas and the surrounding high conservation value lands.

Likewise the PACs assertion that approval of an exploration project will have no bearing on a subsequent production application lacks credibility. Significant investment in an exploration project, presumably some millions of dollars, will inevitably apply pressure to approve a subsequent productions proposal. The PACs assertion is an unconvincing statement for the record that facilitates the intent of the proponent and the royalty interests of the Government.


5. Changed environmental circumstances

In March 2012 the Coastal Upland Swamps were listed as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act. The listing notes that the swamps harbour biodiversity of international standing and highlights the threat posed by coal seam gas operations. The impacts of coal seam gas extraction are likened to those of longwall mining, which was listed as Key Threatening Process under the TSC Act in 2005. A listing of the swamps under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is expected in the very near future. Most of the bores are within the immediate vicinity of swamps. The risks to the swamps posed by produced water and clearing some 9 ha of land requires a reassessment in the light of the heightened concerns for the swamps. The modification application makes no reference to the upland swamps or their EEC listing.

Land clearing and disturbance associated with large vehicle access will also impact on Pultenaea aristata communities. The 2009 approval makes no provision for impacts on Pultenaea aristata. Vehicle movements risk the introduction of weeds into the largely pristine area.

6. The need for gas

Contradicting the PAC position that exploration does imply or leverage production, the current application argues that project approval will help solve a gas supply crisis in NSW. However the so called gas crisis is a self-serving myth propagated by the industry and the Government. There is NO gas crisis in NSW and there is no anticipated need for new baseload power before the next decade. So, there is a real window of opportunity now to deploy renewable energy sources in a staged and effective manner.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission.
_______________________________________________

I oppose granting the extension of activities to APEX Energy for the following reasons:

1. The area of the Illawarra upper escarpment is completely unsuited to CSG mining consisting almost entirely of SWA drinking water catchment "Special Areas" and dams, National Parks and other environmental preservation or conservation areas. It is also a high risk bush fire area which is exacerbated by its highly combustible peat base: This months bush fire ran through and burnt out APEX drill sites 9 and 10. This is a unique and highly sensitive upland swamp area, whilst production CSG mining is an extensive and environmentally invasive industrial activity that will result in 150+ well pads and associated above ground infrastructure on the escarpment. This activity will permanently damage and or change the ecology.

2. The risks of CSG mining are now well documented (especially those relating to water contamination) and current NSW CSG control legislation acknowledged as inadequate for managing this risk - The NSW Premier reconfirmed this only yesterday in his interview with Alan Jones. The revised NSW Government regulatory framework has yet to be released and it would be improper to proceed prior to APEX being assessed against these requirements.

3. The area is already under threat from massive coal mine expansion using long wall mining technologies. I understand that in the case of the Gujurat mine at Bulli the scale is 10x and at the Helensburgh Colliery 3x. There Warratah rivulet near Helensburgh that feed the Woronora dam has already subsided and gone underground as a result of Long Wall mining at the Metropolitain coal mine and 18 months of remedial work has failed to resolve the problem. Therefore the risks associated with CSG mining are being layered on top of the existing impact of extensive coal mining in the area - with no combined impact study yet undertaken!.

4. The applicants (APEX Energy) have already shown their incompetence and unsuitability by allowing a PEL to lapse through default, as a result of an "administrative oversite" What if the result of the next "oversight" is contamination or fire in our catchment, or environmental conservation areas?
The lapsed PEL cancels all current APEX CSG approvals therefore, at the very least, no consideration should be given to extensions or any other type of approval for APEX until this matter is resolved

5. There is widespread public opposition to CSG mining in the area. This includes a public petition of around 20,000 signatures delivered to the Premier, formal votes against CSG mining by 4 local councils (Wollongong, Wollondilly, Cambletown and Sutherland), and at least 2 local state MP ( Lee Evans and Ryan Park). Major concerns exist around the original approvals forced through by the previous Labour government under part 3A of the NSW planning Act , which bypasses many of the usual and expected environmental and public consultation processes. I am very concerned by the absence of independent research into the environmental impact of CSG in such a vital area of water supply ( let alone the combined impact of CSG and mining) and the lack of pubic consultation: Specifically APEX Energy did not enter into public consultation before its initial drilling at Darkes Forest, nor earlier this year before drilling within the Warragamba water catchment at Oakdale - this shows total a lack of respect for due process and pubic opinion .

6. Any decision to extend, renew, or other wise approve new activities inand around the water catchments flies in the face of commitments made by The Premier of NSW ( Barry O'Farrell that there shall be no mining ( including CSG mining) in our water catchments ' NO IFS, NO BUTS!"

Yours faithfully
Michael O' Brien

NSW State Gov't,

The consequences of this type of exploration and mining, I refer to the CSG is evident in the USA.

When will we wake up to this idiocy. Do the the people have to resort to drastic measures for this short term gain in energy supplies.

Why not develop the natural resources in these water catchment areas. I'm sure people would prefer to see Solar Panels of Wind generators than CSG mining activities, LETS WAKE UP to ourselves for the good of all before we stuff things up for future generations.

Please note our protests will not go away and will be far reaching.

Phil

Strongly object to coal seam gas operating in the areas of Darkes Forest and surrounding suberbs. Darkes Forest is a peaceful, and quiet location, it has a National Park, a conservation area, orchard and riding school in it and there is no place for mining!!! All residents I have spoken to believe that this is not acceptable. The fruit may be damaged/polluted which will go onto affect our health status, the water catchment area may be damaged and it will destroy the National Park and conservation area. Please, from all concerned, do not let the application for coal seam gas go ahead.

I strongly object to coal gas mining in the Illawarra area.

Coal seam gas mining is a hazard to our environment. No amount of regulation will prevent contamination of our environment. By allowing any further exploration or production is a travesty. 85% of Lismore residents do not want coal seam gas mining their region. I believe that this is the same across NSW including in the Illawarra. You are fracturing communities across NSW. Put an end to it. There is a gas glut across the world. We do not need to mine our agriculural lands to get gas. The greed of the mining lobby is horrendous. Do not follow suit. No more coal seam gas mining, ever.

I am a very concerned resident of Otford. I want the NSW Government to refuse the application for extension for the Coal Seam Gas entitlements made by APEX Energy, thereby honouring the pre-election promise to No CSG mining in water catchments made by the Premier. This is our drinking water!!! I am extremely concerned about the health implications that coal seam gas extraction will have on the water supply that myself and my family and friends use and there has not been enough research into the environmental impacts of CSG mining. There is also the increased risk and intensity of bushfires and damage to the sandstone geology.

I strongly oppose any plans by Apex to continue to drill or modify boreholes. Coal Seam Gas Mining is highly unethical and dangerous to the environment.

This application should be rejected.
Development must always be considered in the context of the surrounding area. This can change over time. Given this, a modification for an indefinite start date is irresponsible.
The risks of CSG mining are well evidenced and the Premier has acknowledged that the current legislation is not adequate to manage development of the industry. In this context, no new applications or modifications should be approved and existing projects should be frozen, to conduct an investigation into the full impacts of CSG development.
The drinking water catchment is unsuitable for CSG exploration and production. Allowing this development to go ahead contradicts the pre-election promise from Barry O'Farrell: "The next Liberal/National Government will ensure that mining cannot occur... in any water catchment area, and will ensure that mining leases and mining exploration permits reflect that common sense; no ifs, no buts, a guarantee."
The Illawarra Escarpment is a high risk bush fire area, exacerbated by its highly combustible peat base. Indeed, in August 2012 a bush fire burnt through AI09 and AI10 in this project. Extracting and piping gas in this environment will increase fire risks.
The development of this coal seam gas project is being layered on top of extensive coal mining and a fault line, without an assessment of the combined impacts.
There is widespread public opposition to CSG exploration and mining in the area. This includes a public petition of over 30,000 signatures, formal votes against CSG mining by local councils and two actions opposing CSG development attended by over 3,000 people each.

I oppose the Apex application for the following reasons;-

First and foremost, Barry O'Farrell made a pre-election promise not to mine in water catchment areas '...no ifs, no buts...a guarantee'. I ask him to keep his promise. With the potential risks to water, it is ludicrous to allow CSG in water catchments.

We recently had a bush fire that went through Darkes Forest. This included an area that was designated as a site for a CSG bore hole. It is now totally burnt out. And this is not yet the bush fire season. The hazzards therefore are very, very obvious.

The Wollongong council and citizens have a long-term vision for an expansion of the tourist industry in this area. The Illawarra is very special, located between the escarpment and the ocean, not far from Sydney, the potential for tourism is enormous, providing many and varied much needed jobs. - More jobs than the CSG industry. The foreseen 150-200 production wells, together with the infrastructure, if the project goes ahead, will ruin the beauty of the escarpment and will certainly be a detriment to tourism.

local councils and thousands in the community have made it clear that they do not want CSG. In the Illawarra, we have held two events, each drawing more than 3000 people, protesting about CSG. We have handed a petition of 30,000 signatures to the government. Our message is loud and clear.

The request by Apex for a delayed starting date til day of first drilling is ridiculous. How can it possibly be assessed when it is impossible to judge the conditions in the future, especially with continuing, and expanding coal-mining.

Water is more precious than gas. I ask the Government to use wisdom and base decisions in this matter on the long term good of the state and its communities and not on the short-term profits.

See attached File

The objection is grounded for two main reasons:
Firstly, development must always be considered in the context of the surrounding area. This can change over time. Given this, a modification for an indefinite start date is irresponsible.
Secondly, the risks of CSG mining are well evidenced and the Premier has acknowledged that the current legislation is not adequate to manage development of the industry. In this context, no new applications or modifications should be approved and existing projects should be frozen, to conduct an investigation into the full impacts of CSG development.

The Southern Highlands Coal Action Group wishes to register its opposition to the extension of approval for Coal Seam Gas (CSG) exploration activities by Apex Energy NL in the Illawarra upper escarpment. Our concern is that exploration of this type within the water catchment poses a risk to drinking water supplies and would set a poor precedent for similar approvals in other areas, including the Southern Highlands, which is also critical part of the Sydney Water Catchment area.

Furthermore we believe that exploration associated with projects of this kind that potentially involve massive interference with environmentally sensitive areas should not proceed until the environmental feasibility of the entire CSG extraction project is thoroughly evaluated. Our understanding is that the proponent is proposing a network of around 160 wellheads across the water catchment area, each connected by water and gas pipelines. They envisage this project as being capable in its final form of supplying up to 20% of the NSW gas requirements which would almost certainly require the pipeline network to extend across the catchment to the high pressure pipeline to Sydney near the AGL gas processing facility at Rosalind Park.

It is almost inconceivable that this level of development, involving a network of roads and pipelines capable of handling heavy vehicle traffic, gouged through an area that is for the most part environmentally sensitive wetland, will prove to be acceptable to the authorities concerned. However if Apex believes they have a workable plan, then let them make their case now, and show the community the extent and implications of their plans before any exploration is done and damage potentially incurred.

It should be understood that the process of exploring for CSG involves the depressuring of the coal seam and the extraction of water, in the same manner as the full-scale extraction process, albeit over a smaller area. However the environmental risk is there and with the structural damage that will certainly occur to the local ecology, we continue to be astounded that the Government allows poorly capitalized companies such as Apex and their drilling partners Ormil to conduct speculative drilling for a project that is almost certainly environmentally infeasible in such an sensitive area- so sensitive in fact that public access is denied.

We note that in the last few days the application by Apex Energy NL for a 3-year extension of exploration activities in the water catchment areas of the upper Illawarra escarpment has been approved, however we urge you to review the any decision to allow drilling to proceed on the basis of the information we have outlined above.


Alan Lindsay

On behalf of the Steering Committee of the Southern Highlands Coal Action Group