Narrabri Gas

Santos will employ local people so I support it.

I wish to make a formal objection to the Santos Narrabri Gas Project in the Pilliga and express my support for the local communities and farmers; the overwhelming majority of which vehemently oppose the Coal Seam Gas Project along with its extensive, irreparable adverse impacts.

A Narrabri Gas field would pose significant risk to our two most precious water resources: the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin; both considerable economic, environmental and heritage resources in the country. Our farmers, agricultural output, communities including the Gamilaraay traditional custodians, biodiversity 'hot-spot' ecosystems, threatened dwindling wildlife as well as the quality and availability of water across the Great Artesian Basin would all suffer adversely from such an irresponsible act of short term profiteering and speculation.

It is well known that 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 barium. In addition, there have been over 20 reported spills and leaks of toxic CSG water from storage ponds, pipes and well heads. Santos or any such mining venture cannot be trusted within such a valuable, fragile and irreplaceable part of our national resources.

The Santos gasfield would fragment 95,000 hectares of the Pilliga with well pads, roads, and water and gas pipelinesÂ--damaging vital habitat and threatening the survival of endangered species; we owe it to our future generations to protect what few fragile and rich ecosystems currently remain. It is our valuable national heritage and their legacy.

It is imperative that we respect the traditional Gamilaraay custodians of the region. There are hundreds of cultural sites as well as songlines and stories connecting the Gamilaraay to the forest and to the groundwater beneath. Australia has a horrific and disgraceful human rights history where our indigenous Australians are concerned. To continue to disregard their human rights and fundamental needs as a people would continue to add to the abomination that is our true colonial history.

Human health concerns from exposure to a range of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds released into the air from coal seam gas operations, including flaring of gas wells is certainly another matter of interest. The effects of volatile organic compounds vary, but can cause eye, nose and airway irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and loss of coordination. These impacts have been documented in human populations nearby to existing gasfields in Queensland, Sydney and in America.

Risk of fires would increase throughout the Pilliga's tinderbox 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. The hazard risk to the area and the livelihood of its stakeholders would certainly be significant.

Further, it is also of great concern that thousands of tonnes of salt waste will result from the project and 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; a burden to be unecessarily & no doubt regretfully carried by future generations.

We have agency and no doubt opportunities as a nation and as smaller interdependent communities to act responsibly and commit to industries that promote the overall wellbeing of our societies, the environment that sustains us and a brighter not bleaker future.

I understand that the Santos Narrabri Gas Project in the Pilliga poses far too much risk to the region and its people; far too huge a price to pay for the short term gains that will mainly benefit few financial stakeholders and those in overseas markets. It would be a greatly irresponsible, speculative and profiteering enterprise of our political representatives if authorised and I hence express my sincerest objection to its undertaking.

As a landholder in the Narrabri district, I would like to submit my support for the Narrabri Gas Project.

I have 3 gas wells on my land and have had no problems. I find Santos very easy to deal with. They always listen to my concerns and have always been very co-operative with me. I am always informed as to what is happening.

These wells take up a minimal part of land and I have had no problems with continuing my farming operations. I have grown crops and grazed stock around these wells. There has been no effect on the water and the quality and quantity have not changed at all.

I am a third generation farmer with a son and grandson to carry on behind me. Our original farm has been held by my family for nearly 103 years and I would not have permitted the gas to go ahead if I thought it would jeopardise our livelihood now or in the future.

I feel this is an important industry for our district. It will bring in a substantial amount of jobs which will flow on into the economy of our town.

Promote local employment and boost local economy

I support Santos because it will promote growth for the Narrabri area and be a good source of local employment

Santos is and will be good for the town

Santos means employment and progression

I am a local property owner and livestock producer having previously and currently being employed in various industries within the Narrabri Shire including agriculture, construction, local government waste management and the mining/extractative industries. I have undertaken some work on the current santos sites in the Pilliga through local contractors and believe work is undertaken to an exceptional standard. I disagree with the propaganda being pedalled mainly by out of town protestors that farming and gas extraction cannot co-exist. It has also been proven by landholders around that project that not only is it possible, it can be extremely beneficial in the diversification of agricultural enterprises. The beneficial re-use of extracted water will be pioneering in agricultural/mining cooperation and is another example of the best practice to be used in the project. A thriving local gas extraction industry may also provide agricultural opportunities, with the potential for gas dependant manufacturing/industry to be developed, for example a gas powered abattoir. The Narrabri shire has for a long time prided itself on being the "sportiest shire", recognising diversity and participation. I believe the same principal should be accepted in the diversification ad development of new and emerging industries, particular when the historically high employment labour intensive industries are becoming more efficient and embracing technology, reducing local employment opportunities for the community.

I recognise that there are numerous inherent risks associated with the project proceeding, however this is the case with every industry and activity that has previously, is currently or will in the future occur. I believe that Santos has earnt the trust of the local community through exceptional work and best practice and has a 'social licence' to proceed with this state significant development. I am satisfied that the EIS addresses these issues more than satisfactorily and am confident in the ability of the industry regulator and government stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate standards are met and exceeded

The Narrabri Gas Project risks precious water sources, including the Great Artesian Basin--Australia's largest groundwater aquifer. This system is vulnerable to contamination from drilling fluid spills and the salty treated water produced from the proposed 850 wells. 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. 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. Human health is compromised by coal seam gas.

The gas project is vital for the shire, state and country. It will provide a much needed resource and the benefits of the industry include employment and diversity of opportunity for many. It is a good mix in a region that supports agriculture, manufacturing and research industries.

The project is responsibly managed with due diligence practiced at all levels.

The land on which the project is located, is an appropriate use of the area. It is not prime agricultural land.

The benefits of the gas project will be felt far and wide. It will help keep regional Australia strong and will be in the metropolitan and national best interests.

Santos has demonstrated by their stringent safety precautions, that gas can be extracted safely so that it benefits agriculture and wider communities

Santos has demonstrated by their stringent safety precautions, that gas can be extracted safely so that it benefits agriculture and wider communities

The Narrabri Gas Project will provide opportunities for young people and families that my have needed to leave town. Long term, well paid employment is great for people living in the small town of Narrabri. More people earning good wages is good for small business and trades

I support Santos because it will provide employment opportunities for young people like myself. It will encourage young people to stay in Narrabri

As a neighbouring landowner to the Narrabri Gas Project we strongly oppose this development application. This view is based on numerous factors outlined in the EIS and our local knowledge of the project area and its surrounds, particularly pertaining to groundwater and other environmental and social impacts. Our objections are outlined below.

* The lack of consultation from Santos on this project is unacceptable. We are the second closest private landholder to the southern half of the project area, yet we have never been approached by Santos for any consultation or provided information on the project. The Department of Planning should see this as a breach of their community consultation requirements as we are no doubt landholders that are in the zone of affectation.

* Santos's failure to identify the exact location of their 850 well sites in the EIS should immediately rule out this application for consideration. Most of the stock and domestic bores in the area are drilled into ancient streams that may only be a few meters wide, and meander apparently randomly throughout the landscape. Therefore, it is impossible to generalise the impacts of drilling and depressurizing gas wells over such an large area, when aquifers vary so much locally. Ideally an EIS should be submitted for each well location as aquifers can vary significantly within several metres of each other.

* Groundwater is crucial for farms and townships near to the Narrabri Gas Project. We rely in dry seasons solely on groundwater for livestock and domestic water. With our productive bore possibly only a few kilometres from CSG wells, we are extremely concerned about the damage that could be caused in terms of both water quality and effects on bore yields. Depressurizing aquifers through vertical and horizontal drilling can lead to an increase in connectivity between aquifers. It is a very real possibility that aquifers we rely on could be permanently rendered useless, effectively crippling our farms production.

The Narrabri Gas Project EIS has provided insufficient studies on the effect of the Gas Project on groundwater systems. The models cannot predict all possible scenarios of a very complex groundwater system, which is still little understood. Therefore, these studies have not given adequate guarantee that groundwater will be not be affected by gas extraction. If there is any possibility or doubt as to whether the groundwater system could be detrimentally affected then the project should not go ahead. Any reduction in pressure, amount or quality of the groundwater resource is irreversible and this damage will affect all generations to follow.

* Having land next to the Pilliga Forest in the summer already provides constant fear of a bushfire. We are very worried that the increase in traffic, heavy machinery and human activity within the forest. This combined with the constant burning of methane flares will increase the risk of fires in an area that once a fire gets hold is very difficult to stop. Bushfires cause devastating impacts on flora and fauna, but also surrounding farmland and even towns.

* We are concerned that our property will be devalued due to being near a Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Project. The farming community (potential buyers) are largely non-supportive of CSG and are genuinely worried about the effects of CSG on land and water.

Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project (SSD 6456) EIS - objection
I object to this development on grounds of protecting the environment, agriculture and aboriginal lands. If it were to be approved, I support the recommendations of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.
I have read the Secretary's EA Requirements and some parts of the proposed project, as well as some media coverage of the proposal and the record of pollution and environmental damage.
The demonstrable pollution and damage to ironbark forests by water pollution by salt, heavy metals and other chemicals should be a warning sign. It is not a mere threat, but an actual event with on-going, long-term, and unknown consequences. The damage to the vegetation impacts cumulatively upon wildlife dependent upon it. For example, lead uptake by birds causes damage to their eggs resulting in breakages before term, resulting in lost generations of birds - cumulative impact (Secretary's EA Requirements - General Requirements - dot point 5). This type of chemical pollution can also have insidious effects on human health - this is an aspect of "public safety" (SEAR p. 4) that is likely to be overlooked.
I have grave concerns about Santos' comprehension of the risks to the environment and human health. The ABC news quoted Santos's General Manager of Energy Peter Mitchley program for rehabilitating an area polluted by previous operations:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-06/nsw-csg-project-sparks-fierce-debate-over-energy-future/8418102
Referring to the chemical contamination of water leaking from a broken aquifer-lining and resulting soil contamination, he was quoted as saying
"There are some sites where we'll probably be about another year in restoring the chemical balance of the soils and then that part of the remediation across all of our sites will be completed," ..."Then it's down to Mother Nature to grow back and, as you can see around you here, the Pilliga's quite good at regenerating and regrowing."

No mention was made of how Santos' rehabilitation program is decontaminating soils from heavy metals or other toxic chemicals, or the cost of that exercise.
As to jobs, as a rationale for permitting and risking such projects, the longer term values protection of the environment, and the growth of eco-tourism which is far more labour intensive than gas extraction.
Above all, the long-term merit of this type of energy warrants consideration. Resource planners, especially for government (with multiple objectives and public responsibilities), must not be tethered to the past. A recent Financial Times (18 May 2017) article "The Big Green Bang: how renewable energy became unstoppable" alerts us to that fact that "the shift to cleaner power is disrupting entire industries".

I strongly object to the Pilliga santos project. The environmental risks of csg are immense , and this project has the potential for vast destruction . The water system is connected with a large essential water supply . A reduction of quality of this water would be extremely costly to replace, if even possible in the future. Furthermore, the merits of csg are questionable, with consideration to climate change; santos has a terrible track record of managing environmental risks; and the project presents a great bushfire risk. The local community is opposed. Ultimately, The water belongs to everyone, to sustain life. Not to santos.

The gas brings jobs and money to the town.

Attn: Executive Director, Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas Project EIS.

I object to this project and believe it should be rejected.

This project, if approved, would:

1. Extract over 35 billion litres of salt laden groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and will generate almost 500,000 tonnes of salt waste, for which there is no safe disposal plan.

2. Clear close to 1,000 hectares of the Pilliga Forest, fragmenting the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife including threatened species the KOALA. THE BIGGER IMPACT WILL BE ON THE ENTIRE 95,000 HA OF THE PILLIGA FOREST DUE TO FRAGMENTATION OF THE FOREST FROM CSG OPERATIONS. IT WON'T BE LIMITED TO THIS 1,000 HECTARES.

3. They will drill through a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin and draw water down from a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.

4. Lead to large emissions of methane from venting and leakage, adding to climate change.

5. The project will also cause more trauma to the regional Aboriginal community because the area of impact is crucially important to the spiritual, cultural and social life of Gamilaraay people.

6. The project is not justified: Santos' own coal seam gas export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable.

7. It will cause economic upheaval in Narrabri and put agricultural industries at risk.

8. Light pollution will ruin the dark night sky needed by the internationally renowned Siding Spring Observatory.

9. Coal seam gas is harmful to health. Neither the NSW Government nor Santos have investigated or dealt with the serious health effects of coal seam gas now appearing in peer-reviewed research in the United States.

I am extremely concerned about the population of Narrabri town who will be exposed at very close proximity to gas wells. The thought that gas operations will be up to 200m from the important recreational and water bird centre Yarrie Lake which is in the actual town.

That methane will drift throughout the region, making people sick as far as Moree and Maules Creek, just like it does in Queensland gas fields.

There are going to be a lot of sick people in and around Narrabri town, and other towns.

Particularly I draw to your attention the prevailing winds which are
from the SE/SW which will propel gases through he town and the population.

You have to study what has happened in Queensland.

This also leads to loss of land values. In Queensland towns and and around the gas fields - Miles, Chinchilla for example - there is a property crisis, unemployment, a huge amount of drugs, EVERYTHING THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

Wherever there is gas in Queensland there are a lot of very sick people.

EVERYBODY CANT BE WRONG. OPEN YOUR EYES.

I was talking to a woman from Miles QLD who said it has become the worst town, a hopeless case, full of properties that won't sell.

THE GAS RUSH WON'T HELP NARRABRI.

NSW should respond to this by investing in more reliable and ultimately cheaper renewable energy, not by letting Santos inflict more environmental, social and economic harm.

I urge the Government to reject this project and make the Great Artesian Basin recharge area off-limits to gas mining.

I do not believe that Santos' assurances that they will never force themselves on any landholder can be relied on into the future. The NSW Government could easily change legislation which would make this assurance null and void.

I am also suspicious about the direction of the pipeline, which I regard as being a sign that further coal seam gas will be promoted in the more westerly Coonamble area.

This project has all the hallmarks about everything that is bad about the Queensland gas fields. The pattern is the same. The outcomes will be the same if allowed to proceed.

As for the $100 Million Future Fund that the Narrabri Shire has demanded this will not last long if the Narrabri town water supply is contaminated beyond repair.

Which leads us to the question of insurance - or should I say LACK of insurance. It is impossible to obtain insurance for damage resulting from coal seam gas activities.

Anyone suffering from damage from CSG would have to litigate against Santos.

Signed,


Yours sincerely,
Richard J. Laird
"Middle Creek Sth", 211 Middle Creek Rd, Maules Creek 2382

Objecting to the coal seam gas field