Mod 2 - Extension of Time

I object to this application as the risks to out water supply are far to great. There needs to be more research into this BEFORE it is allowed to commence.

My reasons for objection to the proposal are provided in the attachment.

I am appalled at the possibility that these licences may be re-issued. Particulary in a pristine water catchment area.
This would be of even more concern if a time limit on the licences was removed.
I am greatly concerned about the NSW state Govt environmental policy changes on Tuesday, affecting CSG mining, particularly the removal any bans on the process of fracking. This would have grave negative impacts on local water catchment areas and the health of the community.

CSG mining must be halted until independant investigation into the full impacts of CSG development are carried out.
The public demands this!! Stop valuing mining over the environment and public welfare.
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 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.
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 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.

I will do my utmost to oppose any government party that continues to fail to manage this issue as you are.

Regards,
Greg Nash

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached pdf files containing

1. submission of Stop CSG Ilawarra, opposing the application by APEX Energy ( body text - minus information hotlinks - also included below)

2. Photos illustrating the effect of recent bush fires on APEX CSG drill site A10B

Your faithfully

Peter Townsley

On behalf of the Organising Committee of Stop CSG Ilawarra.


This submission is made BY STOP CSG ILLAWARRA.
Stop CSG Illawarra, a community group representing over 3,000 registered supporters and a much larger general community support base, is dedicated to informing the public about the risks of CSG mining (which the industry and our government has failed to do )and to ensure the government behaves in the public interest on this matter, based on scientific research rather than purely commercialism. More information about the organisation, its goals and its research based concerns regarding CSG mining, can be found on our website
Stop CSG Illawarra opposes this application for the following reasons:

1. GENERAL CSG RISK CONCERNS:
* The risks of CSG mining are now well documented and relate to :
 Threats to water
 Leaking methane
 Health impacts
 Industrial footprint
 Seismic Activity
* The extraction technologies being deployed are very invasive and were designed for deep earth (i.e. 3-5 kilometres beneath the surface) oil and gas extraction where there are many, many, layers of geological protection. In NSW CSG lies much closer to the surface, and in some parts of the Illawarra seams reach the surface.
* Current NSW CSG control legislation is inadequate for managing this risk - The NSW Premier himself confirmed this only recently in a broadcast interview with Alan Jones. We consider that:
i. The current Petroleum Act was not designed to deal with gas deposits close to the surface, or as dispersed as CSG and is quite unsuitable for the purpose.
ii. The Responsibilities for the various CSG approvals are strewn across different departments with poor connectivity, interaction and information consolidation.
iii. Important government agencies ( such as the Sydney Water Catchment authority, NSW Environment and Heritage and local authority planning departments) are stripped of their full powers
iv. Ministerial approval (originally installed under Part 3A of the NSW Planning Act and not amended by the current government) overrides many of the reasonable and precautionary processes normally applied to such matters - such as independent environmental analysis, the rights of the land holder, the policies of local authorities and public consultation.
* The risk assessment process for exploratory drilling only considers the risk associated with that exploration activity, when it is understood that the risk is greatest during production. For example APEX's Energy's production CSG plan turns the 16 exploration wells in PELS 442 and 444 (all of which are in or around Sydney Catchment Authority "Special Areas") into 150-200 production wells. This is consistent with what has occurred in Queensland and the USA during the production phase.
* Environmental assessment and public consultation can be minimised and circumvented using the NSW Part 3A Planning laws for projects considered of state significance.
* The Strategic Regional Land Use Policy released this week fails to provide adequate protections, especially to water resources, conservation areas and prime agricultural land. In fact it represents a breach of Premier O'Farrell's commitments on this matter.
* Because of this situation Stop CSG Illawarra is calling for
i. A freeze on all CSG activities, pending the outcome of a Royal Commission;
ii. A ban on fracking, based on the risks already identified; and
iii. A ban on all CSG development in water catchment areas.

2. CSG RISKS IN SPECIAL AREAS OF THE NORTHERN ILLWARRRA AFFECTED BY APEX ENERGY'S APPLICATION TO EXTEND DRILLING DEADLINES:
In addition to the above Stop CSG Illawarra considers that:
* The area of the drilling proposal is completely unsuited to CSG mining consisting almost entirely of Sydney Catchment Authority"Special Areas" and dams, National Parks and other environmental conservation areas.
* The Illawarra Escarpment is a high risk bush fire area, exacerbated by its highly combustible peat base. As recently as August 2012 a bush fire ran across from Bulli Tops burning out APEX CSG drill sites AI09 and AI10 (see photos attached).
* The area covered by this application contains unique and highly sensitive upland swamps. Production CSG mining will permanently damage and change forever, the delicate and vital ecology of these lands.
* The raft of new government policies do not adequately protect drinking water catchment areas such as these. In fact, they are not even mentioned. The drinking water catchments developed under this application provide Sydney's most reliable drinking water supply. Worse still, the new regime removes the ban on fracking,an extraction technique linked to fugitive gas migration, contamination and seismic events. The upper Illawarra escarpment is already geologically unstable and subject to subsidence and land slips.
* The area is already under threat from massive coal mine expansion using long wall mining technologies. By way of illustration we understand that in the case of the Gujurat mine at Bulli the scale is up to 10x and almost 3x at the Helensburgh's Metropolitan Colliery.
* The Warratah Rivulet that feeds the Woronora Dam has already been damaged by long wall mining by the Metropolitan Colliery. Eighteen months of remedial work has failed to resolve the problem.
* 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!
* Four local councils in the area responsible for local planning regulations in the areas affected by APEX's PELs (Wollongong, Wollondilly, Campbelltown and Sutherland ) have all voted against CSG mining.

3. APEX ENERGY AS UNSUITABLE PEL HOLDERS:
* The company is undercapitalised for its task and social responsibility. It is already dependent upon the drip feeding of funds from its Joint Venture partner Ormil Energy, a company itself inadequately capitalised and attempting to raise funds for its NSW joint venture with APEX Energy - as well as another CSG acquisition in Botswana. We ask the question; what financial (or engineering) capacity do they have to rectify any damage that might occur? Currently, almost none.
* APEX Energy have already shown their incompetence and unsuitability by allowing PEL 442 to lapse, as a result of an "administrative over-site". What if the result of the next "oversight" is contamination in our catchment, or environmental conservation areas?
* The lapsed PEL cancels all current APEX CSG development approvals. Therefore, at the very least, no consideration should be given to extensions or any other type of approval for APEX until the matter of PEL 442 is resolved, as we understand the Aboriginal Land Council has also applied for A new licence over the same area.
* 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 public opinion.
4. PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO CSG MINING IN THE AREA:
There is widespread public opposition to the proposed plans for CSG mining in the area. This includes:
* A public petition of over 20,000 signatures delivered to the Premier.
* Formal votes of opposition to CSG mining plans by all 4 local councils affected (Wollongong, Wollondilly, Campbelltown and Sutherland), and at least 2 local state parliamentarians (Lee Evans and Ryan Park).
* A poll in the Ilawarra Mercury newspaper, conducted only this week, where almost 90% of respondents registered opposition CSG mining..
* Major concerns about the original approval, forced through by the previous Labour Government under part 3A of the NSW Planning Act, bypassing many of the usual and expected environmental and public consultation processes.

5. LACK OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:
We are very concerned by the absence of any independent research into the environmental impact of production CSG mining in such a vital area of water supply ( let alone the combined impact of CSG development and coal mining) and the lack of pubic consultation.

6. RENEWAL CONFLICTS WITH THE UNAMBIGUOUS COMMITMENT OF THE PREMIER NOT TO MINE IN WATER CATCHMENT AREAS:
Any decision to extend, renew, or otherwise approve new activities in and around the drinking water catchments flies in the face of commitments made by The Premier of NSW (Barry O'Farrell stated: "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").

Submitted on Behalf of Stop CSG Illawarra by The Stop CSG Illawarra Organising Committee.
(Shirley Gadding, Jess Moore, Rob Edwards, Peter Townsley, Steve Whistler and Chris Williams)

Dear Sir/ Madam
I would like to register my objections to the proposed Apex CSG development in the Illawara region. Although I do not live in the Illawara region, I often travel there with my family. Local friends there constantly voice their concerns about CSG developments in the region. With a professional background in public health, I feel that CSG developments represent a significant threat to hydrological systems, and thus human health and ecosystems. While CSG may be relatively new in Australia, there is growing body of evidence from the US EPA and academic research that CSG developments have polluted groundwater systems. Given the risks CSG poses, I feel more research should be conducted to assure the safety of CSG before sensitive water catchments are possibly compromised by these sort of developments.

Regards, Damian Harkin

Dear Sir/ Madam
I write to register my objections to the proposed Apex CSG development in the Illawarra region. For several generations, members of my family have lived in the Illawarra region. My background is agricultural & I have serious concerns about the risk posed by CSG to groundwater systems and therefore both agricultural productivity & human health. Before CSG proceeds, I strongly believe that it is the ethical responsibility of Apex Energy to ensure that objective scientific evidence proves that CSG poses no risk to groundwater systems, future agricultural use of the land affected & human health in the area.
Yours sincerely
Kate Crosbie

Objections to Modification Proposal 07_0103 MOD2 from Apex Energy N.L.
September 14 2012
At a public rally before the last election the Premier of NSW 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" and "... 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."
"...how long do you think it is going to be before the community expects there to be an independent umpire for regulation of this industry and what have you with regard to the current problem where the recipient of significant royalties and benefits from the coal seam mining--gas explosion in terms of growth--is also the regulator of all the environmental and community issues?
Senator Edwards, Federal Senate Inquiry Management of the Murray-Darling Basin System, Canberra Tuesday, 9 August 2011.
Note: Time constraints have precluded adequate proof reading of this submission.

This submission is supporting the one submitted by the Save Our Water Catchments Areas which is in turn supported by the following community groups and organisations:
Rivers SOS
Botany Bay and Catchment Alliance Georges River Environmental Alliance Illawarra Escarpment Network Otford Protection Society
Northern Illawarra Sustainability Alliance
Hawkesbury Environment Network
Illawarra Residents for Responsible Mining
Stop CSG Sydney

General Comments
Page 1
Page 2 Page 3 Page 4
Page 4 Page 6 Page 8 Page 11 Page 11
Lack of a required supporting PEL
Failure to meet the 2009 major project approval commitments Apex Energy is no longer the project operator
The need to consider production Summary of impacts
Changed environmental circumstances Water protection required under the law The need for gas
Table of Contents
Objections to Modification Proposal 07_0103 MOD2 from Apex Energy N.L. General Comments
Industrial activity and risk taking of any kind is neither appropriate nor acceptable in the catchment lands set aside as Schedule 1 Special Areas to protect the drinking water of Greater Sydney, the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands. More than 60% of the population of NSW depends on the health of the Special Areas.
The Coastal Upland Swamps of the Special Areas are complex and highly fragile ecosystems hosting biodiversity of international standing, and are vital catchment components that store and filter water. The high quality drinking water that Sydney and its nearby regions enjoy depends on the health of the swamp communities.
Sydney is extremely fortunate to have the remarkable and still largely pristine catchment area on it southern doorstep. The shameful damage that has been inflicted on these lands by longwall coal mining bears damning and lasting testimony to the royalty-shaped policies of next-election focussed governments.
The obvious conflict of interest enacted by governments was pointed out by Senator Edwards during the August 2011 hearings of the Federal Senate Inquiry into the Management of the Murray- Darling Basin System; "...how long do you think it is going to be before the community expects there to be an independent umpire for regulation of this industry and what have you with regard to the current problem where the recipient of significant royalties and benefits from the coal seam mining--gas explosion in terms of growth--is also the regulator of all the environmental and community issues?
The community is of course very well aware of this conflict of interest and has little trouble seeing through the masking language woven to justify decisions that are not in the long term public interest.
The impacts of coal seam gas operations have been widely reported and documented. Informative accounts with references are found in the submissions to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas. 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
1
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."
The catchment lands supplying water to Greater Sydney and the Illawarra should surely never have been on that list. Reflecting this "common sense", there is a ground swell of opposition to coal seam gas mining in the catchments, 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. Towns and districts are declaring CSG free zones.
Collectively, we have an intergenerational responsibility to ensure water security and biodiversity into the uncertain future. Filtration and desalination plants are an inadequate and costly replacement for a remarkable natural system that has been in operation for millennia.
Specific concerns and objections to the current proposal are given below.
Lack of a required supporting PEL
The 2009 major project approval granted to Apex Energy depended on Petroleum Exploration Licences (PELs) 442 and 444. The 2009 project approval is underpinned by two PELs; PEL 442 expired on February 26 2012 and PEL 444 expired on April 3 2012. Apex Energy failed to successfully submit a renewal application for PEL 442 and this PEL was withdrawn. Apex then submitted an application for a new PEL, PEL 136, which was subsequently rejected and on March 12 submitted a new application for a PEL 138. In the interim, on March 5 the NSW Aboriginal Land Council submitted an application for a Petroleum Special Prospecting Authority, PSPAPP 58, over essentially the same area of land covered by the lost PEL 442, the rejected PEL 136 and the subsequently lodged PEL 138 application
Most of the bores proposed by Apex are in the area that had been covered by PEL 442.
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
Apex Energy have failed to meet any of the 2009 project approval commitments and the modification application offers no more than unconvincing excuses that entirely fail to explain their failure:
(i) The EA states "a general difficulty in adapting the Part 3A process to accommodate a multiple site Project such as ours". This comment offers no explanation - the discredited and now repealed Part 3A legislation switched-off environmental protections and in fact facilitated the project.
(ii) The EA states: "the inclusion of an additional bore hole, which effectively started the process again". This comment offers no explanation - the additional bore application was lodged in January 2011, some 16 months after the underpinning exploration project was approved in September 2009. The time demanding environmental assessment (EA) for the new bore was undertaken by a consultant. If Apex were nonetheless unable to continue work on the 2009 project, they have then demonstrated that they are not capable of meeting the obligations and responsibilities conferred with a major project approval. The decision to seek to add a further bore without adequate resourcing reflects poorly on their judgment.
It's difficult to accept that the application process for the additional bore could hold up progress on the major project, or would be allowed to hold up progress on the major project.
(iii) The EA states "disruption to arranging funding". Inability to attract funding further establishes Apex were under-resourced, ill-prepared and inadequate project proponents and operators. The 2009 project approval was an ill-judged gamble made without properly assessing the suitability of an applicant intending to carry out potentially harmful activities in Schedule 1 Special Areas.
(iv) The EA states "the rapid emergence of the anti gas movement and sway of Public opinion against the industry". The rising tide of opposition to CSG in NSW began to attract attention in the lead-up to the March 2011 State election. Post-election policy uncertainty delayed PEL renewals until September 2012. This delay did not however pose an obstacle for Apex until their PELs lapsed in the first quarter of 2012 - nearly two and half years after the 2009 project approval.
(v) The EA states "a new state government eager to allay those concerns by Regulation". This interesting and possibly unique characterisation of a Coalition Government keen to remove what it describes as `green tape' provides no explanation for the failure of Apex to meet its project commitments and obligations. No regulations have been introduced that would prevent or hinder the 2009 project.
At the December 12th 2011 Sydney hearing of the NSW Parliamentary Coal Seam Gas Inquiry, the Sydney Catchment Authority explained its role as a consent authority for exploration in the Schedule 1 Special Areas: "Special area catchment lands are areas where access is controlled by the SCA for the protection of water quality under the Sydney Water Catchment Management Regulation 2008. To enable access for exploration the SCA requires proponents to prepare an environmental management plan in order to ensure the protection of water quality. Work cannot
3
commence without the approval of the environmental management plan by the SCA. The SCA applies the neutral or beneficial effects test in its response to planning applications. That neutral or beneficial effects test relates to water quality. Specifically this test requires examination of the potential for impact upon the catchment and water sources that might compromise the water quality within a catchment."
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 to allow the commencement of drilling before their PELs lapsed. They were also slow in providing necessary documentation to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
The inability of Apex Energy to drill any of the 15 bores approved in 2009, the loss of PEL 442 and the rejection of the PEL 136 application unequivocally establishes that they lack the required resources, capability, experience and judgment to meet the commitments and responsibilities of a major project. Apex Energy N.L. (no liability) is not a company to be entrusted with land clearing and drilling operations in our vitally important and highly sensitive Special Areas and the surrounding high value conservation areas. Determining otherwise would further erode confidence in the Planning Assessment Commission as an independent and credible assessment body. That their 2009 project application was approved reflects poorly on the assessment and consent authority.
Coal seam gas operations in the Special Areas should not have been considered by the consent authority at all.
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 and operator, a new project application from Ormil is required. The public can have no confidence in an assessment and regulatory system that would accept project or modification applications from other than the primary project partner and operator.
The need to consider production
The 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. Commercial organisations do not undertake exploration for the common good, and investors do not invest in commercial exploration companies for the common good. If the PAC approves an exploration project, the first phase of production, it is
4
admitting that the Special Areas are potentially a suitable location for the consideration of industrial coal seam gas mining essentially colocated and undertaken concurrently with longwall coal mining. Coal seam gas production impacts must be considered in deciding whether an `exploration' project is to be approved.
Figure 1. A depiction of a production CSG field deployed within PEL 444 and the former PEL 442. The image is from Submission No. 552 to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas from the community group Stop CSG Illawarra. Immediately to the west of the Apex project area is the much larger PEL 2 owned by AGL.
The Sydney Catchment Authority recommended that the 2011 proposal to add an additional bore to the 2009 major project should be considered in a strategic context and the cumulative impacts of full production with up to 150 boreholes and connecting pipelines, access and associated infrastructures. It should also be considered in the context of PEL 2, a much larger PEL immediately to the west of the Apex project area. Approving the Apex modification proposal will encourage AGL to follow the precedent set by Apex. The door to a complete CSG industrialisation
5
of the catchments from one side of the Woronora to the other will then begin to open, courtesy of the NSW Planning Assessment Commission.
Apex Energy's 2009 major project is not in fact an exploration project, it 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 PAC will have initiated the investment. The PAC's assertion that the approval of an exploration project will not result in pressure to approve a subsequent production project proposal is an unconvincing statement for the record that facilitates the intent of the proponent and the royalty interests of the Government.
Summary of impacts
The impacts and hazards of coal seam gas exploration and production operations include:
 Clearing of bushland, swamps and surface soil for bores and well pads, vehicle access, storage containers and, in the case or production, laying and maintaining of pipelines.
 The plant communities of the Special Areas are supported by a nutrient rich layer that is only a few centimetres deep. That layer is easily damaged or lost and difficult if not impossible to replace. There are a number of locations in the Special Areas where cleared vegetation has failed to return.
 Swamps play a vital role as water stores and filters and damaging swamps violates the NorBE test. Swamps harbour biodiversity of international standing.
 Spillage of coal seam water kills plants and swamps and so removes the habitats they provide.
 Introduction of weed species.
Apex Energy's 2009 major project is not in fact an exploration project, It 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.
6
 Cross contamination of aquifers as bores are drilled and/or as casings and seals subsequently and inevitably fail
 Aquifer contamination by drilling fluids and, where hydraulic fracturing is used, fracturing additives.
 Drainage of surface waters and aquifers following seam dewatering and the outward propagation of depressurisation. Dewatering has contributed to the drying of the Thirlmere Lakes and Professor Philip Pells has suggested that the swamps would be highly vulnerable to the aggressive dewatering associated with a production gas field.
 Subsidence triggered by dewatering.
 Sourcing, use and management of the large volumes of water needed for coal seam
stimulation.
 High levels of vehicle traffic associated with site and water management. Entry to the
Darkes Forest area is by a single and narrow road.
 Rig and vehicle noise in the vicinity of dwellings.
 Fugitive methane emissions from leaking bores and wells while being established and in
operation; fugitive methane emissions from inadequate casing/capping/sealing of abandoned bores and wells. As pointed out in submission No. 457 to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas, studies in South Australia and the US suggest that a sealed well will start leaking within 80 to 100 years and possibly within 30 years. Methane is a highly flammable gas and the proposed bores and subsequent wells are in a high conservation value area that will suffer increasing numbers of severe bush fires as a result of climate change. Methane is some 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.
 Fugitive methane emissions from gas pipelines; fugitive methane emissions from ground fissures - natural or arising from fracturing.
History makes it clear that where there is a risk of an accident at some point that accident will materialise, whether it be a consequence of human error, equipment failure or an unexpected natural event. As pointed out by Dr Stuart Khan in submission No. 330 to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas, Fukushima is an example of a low frequency risk with significant impact. The Deep Water Horizon disaster was in part the result of the failure of a concrete seal. Referenced examples of industry errors, accidents, monitoring failures, reporting failures and hubris are given in Submission No. 457 to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas. As an example, the day after calling for tighter industry standards, AGL were embarrassed by a blow-out in their Camden gas field. There have been more incidents since the close of submissions to the NSW CSG Inquiry, notably the spill of highly saline water in the Pilliga that has damaged trees (see Fig. 6) and harmed wildlife. More recently AGL have been found to have failed to adequately monitor air emissions. Apex Energy is a significantly smaller and much less experienced company than AGL.
A 2010 study of gas mining in Queensland by JPMorgan concluded environmental damage costs could outweigh revenue benefits. With the best of intentions and regulations, gas companies cannot be trusted as environmental custodians.
7
Water catchments, parks and reserves and linking green corridors cannot sensibly be subject to the risks posed by the coal seam gas industry.
Figure 2. Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) depiction of the effects of de-watering on surface and base flows. De-watering can result in aquifer compaction and subsurface subsidence leading to surface subsidence and a cone of depression. Existing fractures are enlarged and new ones created. There are consequential changes in ground water flow direction and reduced baseflow discharge. Seam stimulation would aggravate these effects and increase vertical water movement at the expense of horizontal flows. Used with permission of the SCA.
Changed environmental circumstances
Coastal Upland Swamps
Most of the proposed `exploration' bores are within the immediate vicinity of swamps, yet the modification application makes no reference to the March 2012 listing of the Coastal Upland Swamps 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 and moves are afoot to obtain a RAMSAR listing.
The swamps play a vital role in the catchments as extensive but thin sponge-like water stores and filters, as has been recognised in the report of the Southern Coalfields Inquiry and the PAC reports for the Metropolitan Colliery and Bulli Seam Operations proposals. The risks to the swamps posed by coal seam water (see Figure 4) and the clearing some 9ha of land requires a reassessment of the proposed project in the light of the heightened concerns for the swamps.
Water catchments, parks and reserves and linking green corridors cannot sensibly be subject to the risks posed by the coal seam gas industry.
8
Contribution to Storage (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
1909-2010
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Total Storage Inflow (ML)
The importance to the catchment of the Waratah Rivulet's flow contribution cannot be overstated. The yearly flow contribution to Woronora Reservoir from 1909 to 2010, showing the Waratah Rivulet provides up to 50% of the flow in dry periods (provided by the Sydney Catchment Authority). The Waratah Rivulet provides more inflow to the Woronora Reservoir than the Woronora Reservoir because of the presence of swamps near the Waratah Rivulet.
Illustrating the importance of the swamps, the SCA advises that inflows to the Woronora Reservoir from the Waratah Rivulet are greater than from the Woronora River because of the baseflow release of water from swamps in the vicinity of the Waratah Rivulet. In periods of reasonable rainfall the Waratah Rivulet provides 30% of the inflow to the Woronora Reservoir. Importantly, in dry times it provides up to 50% of the inflow to the reservoir.
Illustrating the importance of the swamps, the SCA advises that inflows to the Woronora Reservoir from the Waratah Rivulet are greater than from the Woronora River because of the baseflow release of water from swamps in the vicinity of the Waratah Rivulet. In periods of reasonable rainfall the Waratah Rivulet provides 30% of the inflow to the Woronora Reservoir. Importantly, in dry times it provides up to 50% of the inflow to the reservoir.
The bore approved in late 2011 by the PAC is in Fern Gully in the immediate catchment area of the section of the Waratah Rivulet that has been badly damaged by longwall mining. Most of the proposed exploration sites are located in the Woronora and Metropolitan Special Areas and most of those are in the Metropolitan Special Area. Apex confirms that a production field will largely reside in the Special Areas. Almost all of the Coastal Upland Swamps are located on the Woronora Plateau and most are in the Woronora and Metropolitan Special Areas, with the Metropolitan Special Area having the largest population. There is a particularly large population in the north- eastern corner of the Metropolitan Special Area, which is within the 2009 project envelope and will be well within the envelop of a production field. The 70 to 150 well production field envisaged by
Waratah Rivulet Woronora River
9
Apex would require the clearing of 76 to 96 ha of land that would inescapably impact on the swamps This cannot sensibly be ignored or accepted.
Polluted Environments like the land under the impact of a coal seam water spill in 2004 on a swamp community near Lizard Creek in the Metropolitan Special Area. As of 2010 there has been little recovery in spite of remediation work by the Sydney Catchment Authority.
Approving the exploration project admits the possibility of the production project and that in turn admits and accepts damage to the swamps.
Sacrificing the swamps and compromising water security is not in the public interest and not in the interest of the next and subsequent generations.
Pultenaea aristata
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.
10
Proximity to important nature reserves threatened e.g. Upland Swamp immediately adjacent to the location of approved Apex CSG exploration site AI10. The site is on SCA land, having been relocated about 100m from its original location on what was Dharawal Nature Reserve, now Dharawal National Park, as part of a 2009 approval requirement.
Water protection required under the law
The Environmental Assessment and Planning (EP&A) Act 1979 requires a consent authority to "refuse to grant consent to a development application relating to any part of the Sydney drinking water catchment unless the consent authority is satisfied that the carrying out of the proposed development would have a neutral or beneficial effect on the quality of water." Given the role of swamps, damage to swamps inescapably fails the Neutral or Beneficial Effect (NorBE) on water test, in contravention of the EP&A Act.
In the interests of the proponent and State revenue, and ignoring considerations of cumulative impacts, the meaning of neutral could of course be redefined and blurred by the consent authority admitting some `negligible' deviation from neutral and accepting some level of damage to swamps. The public could then have no respect for the consent authority or the legislative framework within which it operates. Cumulative impacts cannot be ignored.
The need for gas
Contradicting the PAC position that exploration does not imply or leverage production, the current application argues that project approval will help solve a gas supply crisis in NSW. There is no gas crisis in NSW and there is no anticipated need for new baseload power within the next decade. There is currently a window of opportunity to deploy renewable energy sources in a staged manner.
11
Renewable energy of course yields no royalties. The gas crisis is a shamefully self-serving myth propagated by the industry and the Government.
Environmental Destruction see Contaminated Pilliga woodland in north-western NSW following a spill of contaminated water from coal seam gas operations. This damage represents the real gas crisis.
12

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

Peter Townsley

I believe that 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 cancelled.

A 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 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.

This environment and people damaging industry must not be allowed to gain a foothold in NSW.

I object to this application. Consents for applications normally have a specified validity period, for good reason, and there is no reason to make an exception in this case.

In any case, I share the public opposition to allowing coal seam gas extraction in the areas covered by this application. In particular, drinking water catchment areas are 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."

Additionally, bushfire prone areas are unsuitable for coal seam gas extraction. A bushfire ripped through this site only last month (August 2012). Fire risk will be increased by siting coal seam gas operations here.

Finally, the scientific debate on the total carbon emissions of coal seam gas is ongoing, and there is increasing evidence that fugitive emissions from many coal seam gas operations are high enough that the total carbon emissions are higher than many black coal mines. Surely it is irresponsible to approve coal seam gas mining operations anywhere unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated that substantial reductions in carbon emissions vis a vis coal mining can be reliably achieved, and the onus is placed on coal seam gas miners to achieve those reductions in their operations.

For all these reasons, I do not think the application should be approved.

My husband Keith Horton shares these concerns, and would like to be included as a person making a submission that objects to the application.

Yours truly,

Please do not let these gas companies ruin our environment, our drinking water, our life.
We have spoilt this land enough with our greed. It is disgracefull what we have done. Stop now. !!!

Notwithstanding the attached submission, I do not believe that it can be justified legally or otherwise, to allow this type of industry to operate within protected environments, along side farming or water areas, in national parks or other, and this comment is precedented the world over where this industry occurs. Further, all SEE's produced by the developer are paid for by the developer and therefore, can not be relied upon as giving an independant view in the interests of the state and its communities.

This application proposes to drill for CSG in the Sydney water catchment. This is not supported by evidence that it will not harm the drinnking water of millions of Australians. Please do not approve this until you have unbiased categorical evidence that it will do no harm to the environment or drinking water.

Please reject the Apex application. This exploration endangers both the water catchment and valuable farmland and orchards.

I am in despair over the failure of government to protect us.

Please think of the public interest. There is no reason to allow this application. It is within the power of government to refuse it, and it should be refused. We elect governments to represent all citizens not just business, and in this case the public interest outweighs the private.

The idea of drilling for gas in water catchment areas is obscene.When is these governments going to start looking after their public rather than their own political welfare.
No more. This will cost someone their seat in parliment.

Water catchment areas should be free of any mining especilally coal seam gas mining which poses immense environmental problems. Apex Energy NL should not be allowed an additional three years to complete drilling of its approved extraction boreholes because of the environmental impact this will have on our water catchment area.

To the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

I, like most of the Illawarra community, am strongly opposed to the extension of the Apex/Ormil project to drill for coal seam gas in the Woronora and Nepean catchments. This is clearly a move to gain unlimited time to begin drilling and wait for the community opposition to tire.

I already have concerns about the amount of mining occurring in this area and subsequent environmental issues. To allow this project to also occur is madness, and clearly breaking the Premiers promise to not allow mining in any water catchment areas.

There is mounting evidence into to health and environmental risks of CSG mining, and the government has acknowledged that current legislation cannot properly manage the growth of this industry. You simply cannot allow it to develop without a full and impartial investigation into the impacts of CSG mining, to do otherwise would be reckless.

The concerns of the community are valid and reasonable, halt the development of the industry until all the risks are known and mitigated. To risk our precious water supply on an arid country is ridiculous and irresponsible. I urge you not to grant this extension to Apex energy and listen to the people of NSW not just wealthy companies, for the sake of democracy.

Yours truly,

Justin McKinnon.

Some of the issues you may wish to consider in your submission:
1.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.
2.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.
3.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."
4.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.
5.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.
6.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 any CSG mining in the whole of NSW. CSG extraction has not been proven to be safe, and until such time as it is, I will continue to oppose it.