Narrabri Gas

See submission below, in pdf format.

To whom it may concern,

Gas at the expense of astronomy - who you kidding?

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gas wells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is AustraliaÂ's only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960Â's it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities. Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research. Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gas field exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow. Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they arenÂ't doing any damage. But itÂ's the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Thanks,

Bart Schiebaan

To whom it may concern,

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gas wells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is Australia's only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960's it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities. Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research. Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gas field exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow. Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they aren't doing any damage. But it's the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Thanks,

Simon McCoy

To whom it may concern,

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gas wells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA, to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is Australia's only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960's it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities.
Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research.
Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gas field exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow. Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they aren't doing any damage. But it's the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Regards

There is no compelling reason for a project with such a damaging impact on the environment to go ahead when the demand for additional gas supply has been exacerbated by increased exports of gas.

The harm that this project will cause to the Pilliga bushland is incalculable and any environmental impact statement that attempts to justify this harm as minimal, permissible or capable of mitigation is fundamentally flawed at best.

There are alternatives to gas and it is these alternatives, such as solar and storage, that should be encouraged. This project must not go ahead.

How about listening to the people for once,,,
We don't want it,,,,
Do we need to say anymore?,,,,

To whom it may concern,

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gas wells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is Australia's only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960's it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities. Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research. Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gas field exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow. Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they aren't doing any damage. But it's the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Thanks.

My reasons for objecting are as follows:

- Australia is an extremely dry continent with great reliance (historically and up to the present) on subterranean aquifers and basins to support farming, habitation and other land uses. Underground freshwater resources don't belong to any one person or group--they're part of Australia's long geological history and will be here long after the people currently inhabiting Australia are long gone. Gas extraction will endanger Australia's largest aquifer, possibly in perpetuity, and would arrogate what should be a common resource to just one industry. It is almost inevitable in my view (drawing from various sources) that the kind of gas extraction proposed here will contaminate the underground water system and lead to future problems, the scale of which we can only imagine.

- As I understand it, farmers near to the proposed project are almost unanimously against it.

- We need to cease expanding coal seam gas extraction and face up to our responsibilities to the issue of climate change. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Goal seam gas wells have been known to leak, sometimes continuously and unstoppably. Riverbeds have been known to upwell methane gas because of coal seam gas mining nearby. Methane outgassing has been documented time and time again in association with coal seam gas extraction. This is a disastrous industry for global warming, and with the Great Barrier Reef dying as we speak, and much of Australia enduring summer after summer of increasingly high peak temperatures, we simply have to stop adding to the greenhouse situation. This is even more pressing given methane's huge impact over short timeframes.

I am opposed to the Narrabri coal seam gas project proposed for the following reasons:

1) The proposed project risks contamination of an important acquifer that is vital to agriculture and the rural community. Although I am not a scientist, I understanding the proposed project involves drilling through acquifers near the surface to reach coal seams below. It is understood those acquifers near the surface connect to the Great Artesian basin. There would seem to be a large degree of risk in such a proposal, particularly since any access bores would need to be maintained indefinitely to prevent cross-contamination, long after drilling and extraction has ceased. This would come at significant cost to the state over an immensely long period of time - presumably one that cannot be even costed in present value terms.

2) The scale of the project would seem to amplify any risks inherent in drilling and hamper any efforts to mitigate any unintended damage.

3) A number of the wells are understood to be in the Pilliga State Forest. This is a unique natural heritage area that should not be lightly placed at risk by drilling. Even relatively small spills of saline water would position large amounts of bushland and the wildlife it supports. I understand damaging spills have already occurred from a small number of test wells.

4) The report of the Chief Scientist that coal seam gas can be safely drilled is subject to a number of important assumptions and qualifications. It is not an unqualified endorsement of the industry or its safety. I am not aware the supporting recommendations made by the Chief Scientist are currently in place and proceeding without those recommendations in place seems to mean that the conclusions of that report should not be relied upon.

5) The science of coal seam gas is not settled due to the fact that data from one site does not necessarily translate to drilling in different areas. This is recognised in the Chief Scientist's report. The Chief Scientist places great emphasis on future scientific studies helping to map the risks but, at present, there still seems to be significant doubts about the impact. For example, the role of fugitive emissions is still much understudied and debated and the impact of these emissions could have serious environmental issues.

6) Doubts have been raised in the media about the ability of the operator to process and manage salt waste from the operation. Salt waste is an important issue as I understand there is very little that can be done with the waste and it will have to be transported large distances to remove it from the site.

7) There does not appear to be any urgent requirement for the project to proceed prior to the Chief Scientist's recommendations first being adopted and also, with the passing of time, for further scientific knowledge to assist in assessing whether coal seam gas drilling is safe (and in what areas). Issues raised regarding supply on the national market appear relevant to the financial position of exporters and not a shortage of supply.

8) Lastly, I understand that the majority of the local community is opposed to coal seam gas and their interests should be respected.

1. The Narrabri Gas Project risks natural water sources, including the Great Australian Basin--Australia's largest groundwater aquifer

The Narrabri gasfield poses a real risk to our two most precious water resources: the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. The area of the Great Artesian Basin with the highest recharge rates is almost entirely contained within the Pilliga East forest. In a worst-case scenario, the water removed for CSG extraction could reduce water pressure in the recharge areas--potentially stopping the free flow of waters to the surface at springs and bores across the whole Great Artesian Basin.¹

Creeks in the Pilliga run into the Namoi River--a part of the Murray Darling Basin. This system is vulnerable to contamination from drilling fluid spills and the salty treated water produced from the proposed 850 wells.

The Murray-Darling system is already suffering from mismanagement since European settlement. Further impacts from CSG would further damage the water system, impacting communities downstream all the way to the Murray's mouth in South Australia.

2. The Gamilaraay Traditional Custodians are opposed
There are hundreds of cultural sites as well as songlines and stories connecting the Gamilaraay to the forest and to the groundwater beneath. Gamilaraay people are deeply involved in the battle against CSG, and have told Santos they do not want their country sacrificed for a coal seam gas field.

3. Farmers and other local community reject the project
Extensive community surveys have shown an average of 96% opposition to CSG. This stretches across a massive 3.2 million hectares of country surrounding the Pilliga forest, including 99 communities. Hundreds of farmers have participated in protest actions unlike any previously seen in the region. CSG will ruin farmers' livelihoods and reduce Australia's capacity to provide food, threatening both water security and food security.

4. The Narrabri Gas Project has a long history of spills and leaks of toxic CSG water--Santos cannot be trusted to manage the project safely

Santos has already contaminated a freshwater aquifer in the Pilliga with uranium at levels 20 times higher than safe drinking water guidelines, as well as lead, aluminium, arsenic and barium². In addition, there have been over 20 reported spills and leaks of toxic CSG water from storage ponds, pipes and well heads. Santos cannot be trusted.

Once the earth is fractured to harvest gas, it cannot be un-fractured. There are local examples as well as examples from overseas demonstrating rivers in which gas bubbles to the surface. These rivers are irreparably damaged.

5. The Pilliga is a haven for threatened wildlife
The Pilliga is one of 15 nationally listed `biodiversity hotspots' and is vital to the survival of threatened species like the Koala, Spotted-tailed Quoll, Black-striped Wallaby, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Pilliga Mouse and South-eastern Long-eared Bat. The forest is home to over 200 bird species and is internationally recognised as an Important Bird Area². The Santos gasfield would fragment 95,000 hectares of the Pilliga with well pads, roads, and water and gas pipelines--damaging vital habitat and threatening the survival of endangered species.

6. Coal seam gas fuels dangerous climate change
Methane is by far the major component of natural gas, and is a greenhouse gas 72 times more powerful than CO². CSG fields contribute to climate change through the leakage of methane during the production, transport, processing and use of coal seam gas.

7. Human health is compromised by coal seam gas
A range of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds can be released into the air from coal seam gas operations, including flaring of gas wells. The effects of volatile organic compounds vary, but can cause eye, nose and airway irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and loss of coordination⁴. These impacts have been documented in human populations nearby to existing gasfields in Queensland, Sydney and in America.

8. The nation's premier optical astronomical observatory is at risk
The Siding Springs Observatory, situated in the Warrumbungles and adjacent to the Pilliga, is under threat from the Narrabri Gas Project due to light and dust pollution⁵. The area has been internationally recognised as a `dark sky park'⁶ and the 50m high gas flares proposed by Santos threaten the viability of the facility.

9. Thousands of tonnes of salt waste will result from the project
Santos has no solution for disposing of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of salt that will be produced. Between 17,000 and 42,000 tonnes of salt waste would be produced each year. This industry would leave a toxic legacy in NSW.

10. Risk of fires would increase throughout the Pilliga's tinder-box conditions
Methane flare stacks up to 50m high would be running day and night, even on total fire ban days. The Pilliga is prone to severe bushfires. The project would increase ignition sources as well as extracting, transporting and storing a highly flammable gas right within this extremely fire-prone forest. Australia already struggles with the increasing number of bush fires and increasingly early onset of fire season due to climate change. Adding further fire risks and potentially diverting firefighting resources away from fire prone areas in which risky activity has not been conducted is a burden that should not be expected of any Australian community.

To whom it may concern,

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gas wells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is Australia's only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960's it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities. Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research. Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gas field exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow. Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they aren't doing any damage. But it's the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Thanks for your time

I live in Victoria and have been an environmental activist all my life. I am now 50 years old and my passion to defend our remaining wilderness, clean water and habitat has only grown stronger over time. I run a Facebook group called Artists Against CSG which includes musicians and other people who draw strength and inspiration from the land. We believe that CSG is a failed experiment which must be consigned to the past.
I quote the Wilderness Society's comment as it sums up my feelings exactly.
"Energy giant Santos has plans to industrialise the Pilliga with 850 coal seam gas wellsÂ--threatening this natural refuge, our precious groundwater, and the communities who rely on it. We also know that if weÂ're to maintain a safe climate and keep global warming below 2 degrees, projects like this cannot go ahead. "

To whom it may concern, I would like to state that I am catagorically against any frakking being done in Australia. The first reason is the sheer destruction it leaves behind, - look at America and see if that is really what you want here! The second is water,...Australia does not have a plentitude of water, if it did there would be no need for water restrictions, which we have every year. Why then waste our precious water on something like this which will take an inordinate amount of water every day. Finally, we do not need more fossil fuels, we need to make the switch to renewables, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. To keep sticking your head in the sand is to condemn our world! - No, that is not an exaggeration.

The Narrabri gasfield poses a real risk to our two most precious water resources: the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. The area of the Great Artesian Basin with the highest recharge rates is almost entirely contained within the Pilliga East forest. In a worst-case scenario, the water removed for CSG extraction could reduce water pressure in the recharge areas--potentially stopping the free flow of waters to the surface at springs and bores across the whole Great Artesian Basin.¹

Creeks in the Pilliga run into the Namoi River--a part of the Murray Darling Basin. This system is vulnerable to contamination from drilling fluid spills and the salty treated water produced from the proposed 850 wells.

Extensive community surveys have shown an average of 96% opposition to CSG. This stretches across a massive 3.2 million hectares of country surrounding the Pilliga forest, including 99 communities. Hundreds of farmers have participated in protest actions unlike any previously seen in the region.

I object to the Narrabri Gas Project on the following grounds:
* Australia has abundant natural gas in offshore reserves which are already accessible due to ongoing oil extraction with infrastructure in place.
* Meeting Australia's Renewable Energy Targets, required to lower emissions and reverse dangerous climate change, necessitates a phasing out of the use of high emission fuels not increasing them.
* Coal seam gas extraction has a proven record of well leakage causing fugitive emissions which the industry is criminally negligent in recording and reporting.
* When these fugitive emissions are measured it highlights the fact that coal seam gas extraction is one of the most polluting energy sources on earth and should not be developed.
* The Pilliga forest is the most important area of temperate woodland in eastern Australia.
* The figures mentioned in the EIS are smoke and mirrors. The actual area of vegetation to be removed maybe small but it is not concentrated and covers most of the eastern Pilliga and the most critical water catchment of Bohena Creek (vital during periods of drought). The area affected by roads, pipelines, well pad footprints and treatment plants will have a catastrophic effect on the biota of the Pilliga forest over and beyond the lifetime of the project.
* The figures quoted for potential numbers of Pilliga Mouse are complete rubbish based on assuming all habitat is good habitat. On-ground surveys, in which I have participated, have never found the mouse at the densities quoted in the modelling and individuals were only recorded in low numbers at few of the many locations trapped, despite a high number of trap nights and several teams of expert small mammal ecologists.
* Koalas were recently plentiful in the Pilliga and although the decline had commenced before gas exploration activities, attempts should be made to recover the population not hasten its extinction.
* The threats to significant isolated populations of species such as the:- pale-headed snake, black-striped wallaby, greater long-eared bat and bare-nosed wombat, from the increase in vehicular traffic during the construction phase and ongoing for the life of the project pose an unacceptable risk to the viability of these critical populations of these and other species at the edge of their known ranges.
* The increase in weeds from construction and infrastructure maintenance threatens the viability of the many threatened and near threatened plant species and invertebrates.
* Climate change will cause a shift in the environmental attributes of arid and semi-arid Australia causing an easterly migration to and through forested refugia areas like the Pilliga Forest, which mean it is of national importance to maintain in the best condition possible, not destroy it by incremental degradation.
* The aquifer of the Pilliga Forest has had very little if any disturbance from water extraction for agriculture and has been identified by surveys as having much of its bacterial and stygofauna intact. There are no other areas of NSW and few across Australia where this is the case and so should be protected at all costs.
The threat of groundwater contamination and increased bushfire risk alone should be enough to stop this unnecessary and highly damaging and polluting project. The evidence from the impacts in Queensland and the USA shows a litany of contaminated ground water and rivers, earth quakes, exploding wells and devastated communities where coal seam gas extraction has occurred.
The route and impacts of the associated pipeline infrastructure to sell the gas has not been identified and published. This has the potential to destroy both the best farming land in the country and highly significant remnant woodland vegetation west of the divide and cause further impacts in sensitive areas closer to the coast.

As a frequent eco-tourist, I FAR prefer unspoiled lands and native wildlife. Please don't let Big Oil ruin more of your wonderful country, or kill more of your unique wildlife. Save the Pilliga!

This project is appalling. Any patriotic Australian would question why we are risking permanent damage to our aquifers - which underpin the entire agricultural industry - for the financial benefit of a corporation. A corporation that is responsible for a sequence of serious pollution incidences. The royalties payed for the gas extracted is completely inadequate. Santos may donate to political parties, employ lobbyists and PR firms to sell their project- but they have not got the social licence to operate this destructive industry.

submission attached

There are a number of very important reasons why I object to this project:

1. Precious water sources would be at risk of contamination, including the Great Australian Basin; Australia's largest groundwater aquifer.
2. The local community, including indigenous custodians of the land and farmers, are opposed to project.
3. The Narrabri Gas Project has a long history of spills and leaks of toxic CSG water.
4. This development would harm threatened species.
5. The methane emitted by the project would contribute to climate change.
6. Human health is compromised by coal seam gas extraction
8. The nation's premier optical astronomical observatory at Siding Springs would be compromised.
9. Thousands of tonnes of salt waste will result from the project.
10. Methane emissions from the project would increase the risk of bush fire in the region.

There is a lack of proper scientific understanding of the impacts of CSG extraction, particularly of medium and longer term impacts. The immediate environmental degradation caused by CSG extraction is evident - affected locals and landholders witness it daily. CSG gas extraction is unsustainable and causes environmental damage, some of which is likely to be permanent. These types of proposals should not be approved, rather, the focus needs to shift to sustainable energy projects.

Since European settlement in Australia, the landscape has been cleared of vegetation which has resulted in dryland salinity and a host of related environmental degradation, and yet it continues today despite our understanding of the processes at play. Poorly understood CSG extraction impacts are shaping up to be another disgraceful environmental legacy we leave for future generations.

I object to the incredible risk being posed by fracking generally when alternative sources of clean energy are available.
In this instance to also understand the resultant product is mostly exported with little benefit (relatively) to Australia beggars belief.
It feels a bit like this country has been colonised; not by a foreign country but by foreign companies.
The risk is too great and the ramifications cannot be a) properly understood or, b) reversed.