Narrabri Gas

I vehemently object to this project as it is unsustainable environmentally, socially, culturally and economically, and is completely unethical, for the following reasons:

* It risks essential water sources needed for farming and providing food for current and future generations, including the Great Australian Basin, Australia's largest groundwater aquifer.
* 96% of farmers oppose CSG due to air and land pollution, as well as loss of crucial water - healthy farmland is essential for the Australian economy.
* The traditional landowners, the Gamillaraay, are strongly opposed as this would destroy sacred sites.
* Dangerous materials released released into the environment by CSG have an adverse effect on human health such as eye, nose and airway irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and loss of coordination.
* Santos has a history of spills and leaks, including uranium levels 20 times high than acceptable in drinking water, barium, arsenic and aluminium. Santos has shown itself to be unable to meet acceptable environmental standards.
* There is no proposed method of dealing with the thousands of tonnes of salt waste, leaving a toxic legacy for future generations in NSW.
* Methane flare stacks up to 50m high would be running constantly, even on total fire ban days, leading to severe increased risk of bush fires.
* It would damage vital habitats of endangered species such as the koala, seriously damaging biodiversity.
* This would seriously contribute to dangerous climate change - CSG fields contribute to climate change through the leakage of methane during the production, transport, processing and use of coal seam gas.
* The Sliding Springs Observatory, the nation's premier optical astronomical observatory is at riski due to light and dust pollution.

This project is therefore morally reprehensible, and must not go ahead, for the sake of the environment, Indigenous landowners, human health, and the economy.

SUBMISSION RE THE NARRABRI GAS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The EIS does not satisfactorily address the following issues:

* The forward to the EIS states that Santos has been working to provide energy to homes and businesses across Australia and Asia for more than 60 years. Santos is working to provide financial returns to its shareholders by extracting Australian natural resources and selling them to the most lucrative market.

* Natural gas is not essential to our lifestyles. It is in the interest of all Australians to transition to renewable energy resources in order to to enable a liveable climate for future generations. The anticipated $1.2 billion in State royalties will be of little use to us if we do not act to rein in carbon emissions which are highly likely to precipitate catastrophic climate change.

* Santos claims that NSW is at the risk of gas supply shortages as it imports most of its gas from other states and that the Narrabri gas project can produce sufficient gas to meet up to half of NSW gas demand. However, it is reported in the Australian newspaper (27/04/17) that the Santos -led Gladsone LNG export project has been buying more than half its gas requirements from third parties who could otherwise supply tight east coast domestic markets.
The gas supply problem appears to derive not from the need to extract coal seam gas in Pilliga state forest, but rather from previous poor decision making by governments which have allowed gas extraction companies producers to commit to high levels of gas export at the expense of domestic markets. This issue should be solved at a government level (as has been started by Prime Minister Turnbull bringing in new gas export restrictions) not by allowing more gas extraction hence damage to the environment. In addition, the government should be committing to no new coal seam gas extraction or coal mines in order to curtail carbon emissions that are contributing to climate change.

* Santos claims that it is committed to employing local people and using local suppliers and businesses where possible. The outcome is likely to be that in most cases, it will not be possible because the size of the community only sustains a certain number of locals who have the skills that will be needed.
The Northern Daily Leader (02/03/17) states that only 10% of the 1050 strong construction workforce will be locals. It is highly likely that the local community will lose out, as has been the case in Gladstone where three LNG plants were constructed on nearby Curtis Island in 2010 giants (Sun Herald 19/03/17). The Gladstone experience has been that fabric of the society was torn apart by the boom/ bust effect of a huge surge of workers during the construction phase. Housing prices and rentals sky rocketed and may of the local people were forced to leave because they couldn't pay the rent. Business owners and local services lost staff because workers were unable to afford housing or left to take up substantially higher wages offered by the LNG corporations. Following the boom, and construction of a large number of new houses, approximately 1200 homes have been left empty, housing prices have plummeted and unemployment has risen.

* The EIS states that a total of 807 terrestrial flora species were identified within the project area (691 native) of which ten are listed as threatened species. Four of the twenty two plant communities occurring within the project area are listed as threatened ecological communities under state or commonwealth legislation.
A total of 289 terrestrial fauna species were identified in the project area of which 32 species were listed as threatened or migratory under State and or Commonwealth legislation and an additional 25 threatened and or migratory fauna species had the potential to occur based on suitable habitat.

The EIS states that approximately 1.169 Ha of vegetation would be removed. The EIS states that existing roads will be used where possible which simply means that roads will be constructed where existing roads do not occur. Santos claims that because only 1.5% of the vegetation would be removed and only 3 % of all plant types there would be little impact. Satellite images of other areas where coal seam gas extraction is occurring show significant fragmentation of the landscape due to road and well construction. The disruption to habitat by vehicular movements will continue on a 24 hour basis for all the wells while they are in production. This would have a significant effect on animal movements through the area, hindering access to food and breeding partners. The reduction in numbers of species diminishes gene pools, resulting in greater vulnerability to illness. Many species are extremely sensitive to changes in their environment such as continuous lighting and noise. Track formation opens the area up much more to movement of predatory animals such as foxes and introduction of weed species. Habitat fragmentation will impact on species which are already under threat from other processes, increasing the potential for local extinctions.

* Santos' claim that 50% of the damage would be rehabilitated is called into doubt by the dubious record of mining companies in meeting their rehabilitation commitments. A recent Auditor-General's report has found that environmental bonds have failed to keep pace with the environmental risks associated with the mining industry, the standard of rehabilitation is low, the outcomes are 'vague' and the rehabilitation assessment process is ill-defined.

* In relation to water pollution, Santos' risky quest for coal seam gas in the Pilliga so far has met disastrous results - with over 20 pollution scares, including groundwater contamination, waste spills, and continuing leaks from evaporation ponds. Their poor record in relation to contamination of our precious water resources is not consistent with the claim that the Narrabri Gasfields proposal will not significantly impact on water. The proposed extraction of 37.5 gigalitres of water over 25 years is an irreplaceable waste of our precious groundwater resource. Water samples collected from Bohena Creek in 2011 directly below the current reverse osmosis plant show some some contaminants as being 100 to 300 times higher than in uncontaminated water .

The Narrabri Gas Project will have significant environmental impacts. Approval should not be given for the Narrabri Gas Project to go ahead.

I've visited the Pilliga numerous times - it's an asset to our State in and of itself. Biodiversity, unique geology, a haven for birds (and birdwatchers!) and a place of deep history, especially for the local Gamilaraay people, but also for non-indigenous people like me. It's a fascinating place to visit, and seeing its extent from Mt Kaputar, brings home what a valuable place the Pilliga is.

CSG extraction is completely incompatible with this value. The risks posed to the Artesian water supply from toxic pollution - the Narrabri Gas Project has a long and unimpressive history of toxic spills, the unacceptable proven gas emissions from existing CSG fields around the country, and the risk of fire, make Santos' proposal utterly at odds with the public interest. Industrialising this area would compromise its biodiversity and pollute the dark skies around *our national* observatory at Siding Spring. And to top it off, Santos has no solution for disposing of salt water byproduct.

Unsurprisingly, the local community and farmers overwhelmingly reject the proposal, and the Gamilaraay oppose it. I join with them, and demand the government to reject Santos' project and uphold its obligation both to the local community and wider NSW - our natural assets are not there to be pillaged and ruined and this place truly is a treasure.

As a Narrabri resident for the past 5 years, I've seen the significant positive impact the Narrabri gas project has had on our community. I believe this project is an important stepping stone for our region, and this project has the potential to grow our community and bring greater facilities and events to town.
As an employee within retail finance, I see many residents from the area who are in need of a boost to our local economy. It's very clear to me that the Narrabri gas project would provide a significant injection into our local area, providing jobs and bringing people to town, which will in turn boost local schools, sporting associations & our local small businesses.
I believe that the infrastructure that this project will provide is important to many - not just those in the local area. This infrastructure will boost our local community and those around Narrabri, and also by providing a sustainable resource to reduce our electricity costs and therefore our costs of living. In turn this will allow us to spend more money locally and support those around us.
I believe those against this project are uninformed and have opinions that lack sufficient research. The tactics they use and the opinions they are trying to force onto people are evidence that they are uneducated on the effects of the project.
I firmly believe that the impact of this project will be more than positive and that the benefits to those in the community will be significant.

The planet (that which supports the life of ALL humans) is suffering, we need to work with our environment not rape it!

I urge you not to plant the over 800 new seam gas wells that you plan due to the environmental impact it would have in the local area. The Narrabri area, located in the Pillaga Basin, is host to a diverse population of wildlife and habitat. The proposed plan would permanently and indiscriminately effect the local populations and forever change the structure of area. I urge you to find a less ecologically important area to perform your drilling, or do so in a way that heavily considers the effect on the flora and fauna of the area. I understand that you need to meet you deadlines and make a living, however I hope you do not continue to plan to do so by irreparably damaging the Pillagra Basin. The damage you would do to the area and surrounding populations will effect several other populations in a trickle effect. The devestion will be hard to recover from, and many animals that reside, hunt and hide in that area will be forced out. The noise and ado from the construction over the next 20 years will take greatly impact the wildlife and habitat. Not to mention, the potential contamination and damage of water tables, ground soil and watering holes. Again, I please urge you to reconsider.

Santos have a documented record of a number of spills (more than 20 known occurrences to date) in existing wells in the Narrabri area, including the failure to report. This history provides me with no confidence in Santos to manage the extensive network of weeks being proposed as part of the Narrabri Gas Project.

Having personally visited the Pillaga region as a family enjoying local tourism at sites including the Warrumbungles and Siding Springs Observatory and up to Mount Kaputar, I highly value the area's environmental and cultural significance. The impacts of pollution from the proposed mining activities will directly impact these areas - including light pollution and threats to wildlife.

I have witnessed the growth and development of mining in our region over the last 40 years and have no confidence in the ability of the mining sector to rehabilitate the environment to pre mining conditions. The landscape is permanently altered.

The threat from the Narrabri gas project to do permanent damage to the water aquifers in the region is very real. The scientific arguments presented by Santos are based on "assumptions", however history paints a different story with many examples of contamination to aquifers both in Australia and globally by CSG mining activities. These impacts are irreversible.

The area is of significant cultural importance for the Gamilaraay nation. This project (and other mining projects in the area) have created substantial division in the broader Aboriginal community.

Climate change is undeniable and the Narrabri Gas Project will contribute to increased emissions of methane and other gases. This will magnify the potential for catastrophic fire conditions in the Pilliga.

There will be a negative impact on the social fabric of the region through upward pressures on the cost of living. Housing affordability will decline further for the general population. This will put pressure on infrastructure and social services that are already inferior to those in metropolitan areas.

I am a retired healthcare professional who is opposed to any development of coal seam gas or unconventional gas extraction methods within Australia.
There is a significant body of evidence from America and other countries where this Industry has been operating which proves the negative health impacts to the local communities in the areas of these wells.
The risk to our ground water and potential contamination of our acquirers is too great.
The risk to good farming land is too great.
The environmental impact is unacceptable.
Environmentally, Socially and Economically it makes no sense to be developing an industry that increases greenhouse gas emissions when we should be investing in the sustainable renewable industries.

I strongly oppose coal seam gas in the Pilliga region. I call on our representatives to listen to the overwhelming opposition to this and other projects that threaten our water, health, environment and basic substance of life. We must move to future technologies now to best prepare us for the energy needs of tomorrow. CSG is not the future Australians want.

I am writing in support of the Narrabri Gas Project.
As a Narrabri resident for the past 6 years, I've seen the significant positive impact the Narrabri gas project has had on our community. I believe this project is an important step for our region, and this project has the potential to grow our community and bring greater facilities/events to town.

I moved to Narrabri with my family after gaining employment directly through the Narrabri Gas Project. If this project were to not go ahead, I would be forced to look outside of Narrabri and possibly outside the region to gain employment in my profession.

Working directly on the project, I have witnessed the implementation of world leading technologies within gas development, safety and environmental management. The current workforce on the project is comprised of highly motivated locals who are focused on conducting their work to a high professional standard. We all take criticisms against the project personally and take pride in knowing that we can counteract these arguments through this work that we implement. I believe that this high standard would continue throughout the life of the project and beyond as locals will always be integrated within the project both directly and indirectly.

The project to date has been subject to rigorous and numerous compliance conditions to the level not experienced anywhere else in the world. The company has always approached these in an organised and professional manner ensuring that these conditions are complied with as well as achieving practical outcomes.

I believe that the Narrabri Gas Project will bring opportunities for locals directly and indirectly. Adding to the industry that Narrabri currently has will provide economic stability for the town. It will also attract people to the town (as it did with my family and I) which will help to assist local infrastructure through a boost in residents within our community the flow on affect that occurs will help boost our local schools, business, community groups and facilities. I see this as a significant positive influence that the Narrabri Gas Project will have directly on our community.

I believe that The Narrabri Gas Project will positively impact on the quality of life within the Narrabri and surrounding communities.

Annie Marlow

Berkeley 2506
21 May 2017

To: the NSW Department of Planning and Environment


This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas EIS.

I object to this project because:

ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Santos is asking that the Narrabri Gas Project be approved before it discloses where the 850 wells and associated infrastructure are to be situated. No other CSG project in NSW has been assessed this way and as Narrabri Gas is the largest CSG project ever proposed for NSW, its assessment must be particularly rigorous and the standing process must not be watered down. I request that the NSW government demands that Santos publicly release details of the position of its wells, pipelines and related infrastructure before approval is granted.

ECONOMICS that DON'T ADD UP:
Both the Australian Federal govt and the NSW govt have been justifying their push to increase CSG production on the strength that the Australian East Coast is suffering a gas shortage that threatens our electricity supplies. However to those of us who have watched events unfold it is apparent that there is in fact no gas shortage on the East Coast. Firstly Australia's domestic gas price increased by approximately 300% coinciding with the opening of the Gladstone gas facility and the export of our gas. Secondly the gas producing companies, Santos being one, contracted to supply international markets with more gas than they can produce. Both of these events clearly show that:- 1) there is a shortage of reasonably priced gas for the domestic market, because the huge hike has priced gas out of that market;
and
2) any supply shortage has in effect been manufactured by those gas companies who have over committed to their international markets.

Also the Australian Energy Market Operator has revised its forecast and no longer sees there will be a gas supply shortfall thus taking us back to the first point, that the problem is the cost of domestic gas not its availability.

Equally, and most important for the reduction of Australia's carbon emissions, the cost of onshore gas production is very high and does not stack up favourably against the fast reducing production costs of renewable energy. (see Ref 1)

I am very concerned that Santos states in its EIS Executive Summary, (p ES-5) "NSW...is at risk of supply shortages..." the evidence listed above strongly disputes this.

It is also most important to note that the standard economic equation used by industry for viable onshore gas production does not include a proper costing of environmental and social damage caused by this activity. In the case of coal and CSG extraction this is evident in the understating of methane released to the atmosphere through flaring, from leaking wells and the inability to ensure that decommissioned wells will be sealed for ever. (see Ref 2)

History shows that the public purse foots the bill for much environmental clean up. There appears to be a number of reasons as to why this is not the responsibility of mining companies in the case of mining, but while ever this continues, it should be balanced against the economic viability of any mining project, in this case the Narrabri Gas Project.

Estimated jobs creation at the Narrabri Gas field after construction is as little as 145 (or just 200 according to Santos EIS). This will not boost the local economy to cover the risk of damage to water, land, air, other industries, (ie agricultural and tourism), and public health.

Should the Narrabri Gas project be allowed to proceed the detrimental impact will be most obvious at the local level.

THREAT to our WATER
Ground Water: The EIS for the Narrabri Gas Project states the project is "...not in a major recharge area..." of the Great Artisan Basin. This has been roundly contradicted by a report from soil scientist Robert Banks (see Ref 3) which states:- "These very high recharge areas are rare and widely separated. The main one in NSW is in the East Pilliga Forest between Narrabri and Coonabarabran." It also says that recharge is imperative to supply pressure head to enable the pumping of artesian water to the surface. And that the dewatering of coal seams in this area is a direct risk to the loss of the pressure head and therefore access to the GAB water, threatening agriculture and human existence there. Santos admits there is a threat to pressure head in its EIS.

I am alarmed to read that a scientist who led the CSIRO research on the GAB has now a very close professional relationship with Santos. (see Ref 4) This brings under doubt the CSIRO review of Santos modelling submitted as evidence that the GAB is safe from contamination from CSG extraction. This must be disallowed on grounds of pecuniary interest.

The GAB supplies water for a huge area of inland Australia. It is far too dangerous to risk this water for short term supply of a commodity that for all the reasons I am listing, has been grossly over valued. On these grounds alone this project should not be allowed. Santos' history of contaminating water sources allows no confidence in trusting it with the care of the waters of the GAB. (See Ref 5)

Surface Water: Santos intends to release its treated polluted water to the Bohena Ck as well as spread it through the environment by using it as irrigation and dust suppression (Pilliga Gas Project EIS Executive Summary page ES-16). Given the toxicity of chemicals associated with coal and coal seams, I, like many people in the community, have no confidence that it is possible to treat this water to a safe standard within the production budget required to make this project economically viable. This practice potentially threatens contamination of large areas of soil, - by direct application and run-off; air, - by wind borne dust; and water, - directly by application and by run-off. I strongly object to this proposal because the risk is too great for the protection of our environment for future generations.

Salt CSG mining produces an astonishing quantity of polluted water. The Narrabri Gas Project will produce up to 115 tonnes of salt per day after treating its `produced' water (Pilliga Gas Project EIS Executive Summary page ES-19). It intends to dispose of this in landfill. This equates to a huge area of contaminated land that the community must find resources to manage forever. If it is disposed of locally then it is unacceptable particularly in such a sensitive and unique area as the Pilliga. If it is transported outside the area Santos needs to analyse the impact of the cost to the viability of the project as well as the addition to Santos' and Australia's carbon emissions. In either case the legacy of contaminated land left to future generations must be given a proper economical, social and environmental value in the assessment of the Narrabri Gas project.

Impacts on Cultural Values
Indigenous: The Pilliga Gas Project is within the Gomeroi/Gamilaraay First People's traditional lands. There is evidence of dispute in the way Santos has gained agreement with these people to mine on their native title lands. Regardless of the process it is widely and clearly understood that any loss of connection to homelands creates social disruption for First People that impacts on us all. Any further threat from projects such as Narrabri Gas, to Australian Aboriginal culture must be properly understood and valued on a national scale before project approval. The risk to sacred and significant sights is too great and in the context that the Australian Aboriginal culture is the oldest in the world, the loss of such important places is far greater than the destruction of great cathedrals, mosques, temples or other places of religious significance in Australian European heritage and other cultures.

National Heritage: the Pilliga cultural importance is not just limited to its forestry history, implied by EIS Pilliga Gas Project Executive Summary (page ES-21). It is cherished by naturalists nationally and internationally, and is an important draw for visitors/tourists to the area. It must not be reduced to an industrial gas field.

THREATS to AIR QUALITY and FUTURE CLIMATE
The EIS for Pilliga Gas Project under heading "Greenhouse Gas" (EIS Executive Summary page ES-18), appears to carefully avoid acknowledging that methane is at least as dangerous a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. It is well known that all coal and coal gas mining leaks methane. The risk of this to air quality and accelerating climate change must be scientifically measured and considered before the Narrabri Gas Project or other CSG extraction is approved (see Ref 2)

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
The Pilliga is the largest remnant temperate woodland in NSW. It is one of fifteen nationally listed biodiversity hotspots in Australia.

Without clear location of the proposed gas wells it is impossible to assess the full environmental impact of the Narrabri Gas Project. However the scale of the footprint for 850 wells is industrial. The detrimental impacts to the forest are, but not limited to the following:-
1/ Fragmentation resulting from vegetation clearing for roads, well pads & related infrastructure equates to habitat loss and subsequent biodiversity loss; this in an area that has 25 nationally listed and 48 state listed threatened species.
2/Weed and feral animal increase through the extensive road network and traffic movement necessary to service such a large gas field
3/ Increased frequency of bushfire - the Pilliga is already recognised as prone to frequent bushfires. The Pilliga Gas Project recognises this, (EIS Executive Summary page ES-20). However there is no recognition of the extent of potential gas leaks particularly from disintegrating concrete seals on decommissioned wells. This is a risk that will be present forever, a much longer time than when the wells are producing and an ongoing threat well after Santos has left the Pilliga. I object to leaving this threat for future generations to deal with.

SOCIAL and HEALTH IMPACTS
Community knowledge of the impacts of CSG extraction has vastly increased since Santos did its social impact assessment 3 years ago. That knowledge includes understanding of verified science research on health impacts, threats to water supply, knowledge of impacts on human amenity - eg noise, visual impacts and detriment to natural and built environments (gas wells will be just 200 metres from Yarrie Lake, an important and well visited recreation and tourist area). It is imperative that a new, comprehensive study is completed by Santos before this project is considered for approval.

IMPACTS on the NIGHT SKY
The Gunnedah Basin where the Pilliga is situated is renowned for the darkness of its night sky that allows ideal conditions for astronomy. Light pollution is an accepted threat to practical astronomy. Although the EIS for the Narrabri Gas Project mentioned this it is unclear how flaring and other night lighting from the project will not impact on the operation of the Siding Spring Observatory. The Observatory is of international importance for scientists and amateurs alike and important for local tourism.

Yours sincerely, Annie Marlow
Ref 1.Short-Lived Gas Shortfall, the report - by authors Tim Forcey and Dylan McConnell
http://climate-energy-college.org/short-lived-gas-shortfal
Ref 2. http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Migratory_emissions_20170417-LowerRes.pdf
Ref 3.http://www.gabpg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GAB-Report-Second-Edition_Final10032015.pdf "GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN RECHARGE SYSTEMS AND EXTENT OF PETROLEUM AND GAS LEASES"
Ref 4.http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/programs/nsw-country-hour/2015-07-15/pilliga-csg-no-threat-to-water/6620952
Ref 5. Santos coal seam gas project contaminates aquifer

The long term consequences of the proposed drilling far out weigh the financial benefits, this should be stopped because once our ground water is contaminated it is no longer useful to anyone...

I object to the Narrabri Gas Project on multiple grounds.
Its about time this country & governments put the future of its citizens ahead of short term company profits that often go directly offshore or benefit very few.

Coal Seam gas extraction is very environmentally destructive producing a product that is definately not "clean & green". It produces methane a much more harmful (25% more ) green house gas than CO2. Australia has committed itself to reduce green house gas emissions & yet is way short of meeting these targets. So what is the sense in allowing another coal seam gas project?

Our children need clean water, clean air & food for survival. This project puts all of these essentials at risk.
The extraction of huge amounts of water from The Surat section of the Great Artesian basin recharge area is environmental vandalism. Farmers & governments have spent huge sums of money capping & piping bores to save this critical water source & yet this project extracts 35 billion litres of water & has significantly high risks of contaminating the underground water itself.

Santos has failed to address the problem of the extremely large quantities of salts bought to the surface along with the water. An osmosis plant, which is notable for its high energy needs, may extract the salts so the water may be reused, however no explanation is given to what they will do with the salts. Stock piling just results in leaching back into aquifers & soil. This has already been experienced in the Pilliga forest with existing wells with no effective remediation.

This project effectively removes highly productive agricultural land from production & has the potential to contaminate the soil we all rely upon with salts. Productive agricultural land is increasingly being paved over by urban expansion, lost to mining or declining in productivity due to climate change effects. Food is not supplied from gas fields.

Santos is proposing to pipe the gas product from these fields via the Western Slopes Pipeline. This pipeline removes further highly productive agricultural land from production & crosses 5 major rivers & countless smaller waterways jeopardising floodplain ecology & vegetation communities.
The clearing of the Pilliga forest vegetation & consequent loss of habitat also defies the state goal of preserving critical habitat, & expanding forest in order to mitigate greenhouse emissions.
Coal Seam Gas mining has "flares" that pose a massive fire danger. The recent Sir Ivan Fire around Dunedoo resulted in massive habitat losses. How do we protect a forest on extreme fire danger days when these "flares" are roaring?


Australia currently exports 12% of the worlds gas with global gas supplies at the close of 2015 being in glut - outstripping demand by 26%. Yet supply is set to go up from existing fields by 30% from 2015 levels by 2020, while gas trade only increased at 2.5% in 2015. There is therefor no justification in allowing the Narrabri Gas Project which uses coal seam gas extraction - the most environmentally destructive mining operations to proceed.
In fact investment in new renewable energy projects have now been found to provide cheaper energy than existing gas generators. (Research from the Australian German Climate & Energy, University of Melbourne)

The high gas prices in Australia today are a result of a failure of any coherent energy policy that means we import gas back into Australia at inflated prices.

The Narrabri Gas Project fails the states needs to protect the environment & provides no benefit to its citizens. Instead it further impacts our future.

NO
Find another way to make your millions. All inhabitants of this beautiful wide brown land deserve to live safe from toxins and environmental destruction.
Why do I need to include a detailed essay on the pros and cons... there are no pros! This project will only cause extensive damage to our precious water, endanger wildlife, put human health at risk and scar our land beyond any ability to repair.

Date: 21 May 2017

From:
Peter Page
133 Baptist Street, Redfern NSW 2016

To:
Department of Planning NSW

Personal submission concerning DA SSD 6456 Narrabri Gas Project

I make this submission as a concerned citizen of NSW who wishes to make my voice heard in support of projects which support economic prosperity and environmental protection and sustainability and in opposition to projects like this one, regardless of their economic merit, which risk serious environmental harm. I am not a technical specialist in gas mining or the environment but I do believe in objective facts and scientific evidence. I don't think one needs to be a technical specialist to know beyond shadow of doubt that the proposed Narrabri Gas Project will be ruinous to the local environment in the Pilliga, destructive of water resources in the region and potentially further afield, result in substantial fugitive gas emissions which are harmful in terms of climate change management, and will seriously degrade and impair the local amenity for local residents and existing industries.

My position is informed by knowledge which is readily available on the public record of the effects of unconventional gas mining in the USA and in Queensland, and by knowledge of Santos's own track record in its preparatory gas operations to date in the Pilliga.

The Santos project risks:
- likely and major adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of available ground and surface water in the region
likely adverse impacts on aquifers, watercourses, riparian land and groundwater dependent ecosystems
Likely disturbance and loss of native habitat and wildlife corridors and major adverse impacts on biodiversity and native wildlife sustainability
Adverse air quality, noise and transport impacts including damage to, congestion of and safety risk related to local roads
damage to the visual environment and amenity and increased public safety risks associated with bushfire, transport, dangerous chemicals and gas leaks.
Adverse impacts associated with the inadequate storage and containment of produced water including in the event of local rainfall and flooding
Saline contamination of the local environment in the absence of an adequate plan to manage and remove produced salt.

Economic benefits of projects need to be balanced with environmental risks but it must be recognised the the potential harms of unconventional gas mining can be far reaching, extremely damaging and almost impossible to remediate in both practical and economic senses. It's to a high a risk to entertain. Even if conducted according to plan the gas operations will despoil the local amenity and harm natural environmental values. I believe it's not possible to adequately mitigate the risks I have mentioned above despite the best intentions and undertakings of the proponent Santos.

I urge the Department to refuse the Santos proposal for the Narrabri Gas Project on environmental grounds.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Page

My mum has been working to stop the spread of coal seam gas exploration for nearly nine years. For all those years, she has been attending many meetings as a result of trying to stop coal seam gas. She seems to always have something on when I do. I turned 14 this year. Since I was only about 5, my mum has taken many weeks worth of meetings away from my childhood to stop exploration of this dangerous industry in it's tracks. Most people would think of this as a bad mother but now I understand why she really does it. She does it for me. She does it for me, my brother and all the generations yet to come. I understand that she does it so that we can drink fresh ground water without the risk of being poisoned. The risks involved with coal seam gas is extraordinary but it seems funny how people just seem to ignore it. Why? Money. People would rather make as much money as they can in the short lives that we live at the cost of their descendant's lives. The picture is clear that drilling through fresh water to reach gas will sometime cause this perfect drinking water to become contaminated. Just think, it takes three days to die of thirst. If a spill enters the underground aquifers it could spread in a matter of only a few months. What then happens to these people? Their resource is gone. They will have to rely on another source but it would be nearly impossible to send enough water to all these people until they can establish another source. This will affect every other generation behind us. And not to mention stock. The amount of stock that rely on this water will be enough to send Australia into a frenzy for meat if they cannot drink the water. Coal seam gas is NOT the best way to produce anything. There are better ways that are 100% less dangerous, why risk everything for a dangerous source?

I support this project

The Narrabri gas project could poison the groundwater for many farmers in the immediate and larger area. This has the potential to destroy the careers and lives of the farmers. The farmers who built this area, and from which the community of Narrabri was built upon, might just be wiped out from the government's hunger for money.

I am opposing to the Narrabri Gas Project and would like to put forward arguments for consideration with this SSD.

I get the feeling that the EIS is actually supporting the Narrabri Gas Project by down playing the impacts and exaggerating the benefits. I am really concerned that if the project were to go ahead that the community would be misguided. The responsibility is now in the hands of the approving body to deliver an appropriate decision that is considerate of both the social and the environmental concerns raised by many community members, organisations, and academic literature.

The proposed project has serious negative impacts on the environment and major social implications during and post project. There is already serious conflict in the area surrounding CSG development. Clashes between opposing organisations and Santos have led to threats, violence, and arrests -mainly for the opposing groups. This tension and conflict has led to community divide and some of the local population moving away from the area. If the project continues to receive support and is approved, eventually the township will recede to a bleak and uncertain future. The population is likely to decline once the project is over. With no economy and no future for the young people to stay in the locality, the area is likely to be empty and unusable. The current conflict has already had negative social impacts by creating divide and uncertainty within the community. The social cohesion issue has not been addressed properly in the EIS. It assumes that the employment or job creation will solve social issues and increase the local population without really understanding the historical population base and existing community cohesion. In the case of Narrabri, there exists a strong intergenerational business and land-holder local population. So to assume that employees will simply move into the area forever is unsupported and cannot be guaranteed. In addition, due to the close knit community it will take generations before the "new comers" become part of the community. There is already an unhealthy tension within the community this will only increase if the project is approved. Social cohesion issues are as important as environmental damages as social impact will have severe consequences on the local populations mental health.

The potential environmental damage and impact is absolutely paramount to vision when considering the proposal. Can you really imagine HOW the environment will look like during and once the project finishes? Any measures to mitigate the problems are only as good as the technology used and more importantly on the skill level of people employed to carryout and monitor environmental impacts. It is really important to consider the `Life Cycle' of the project and the accumulated impact once the resource is depleted. How will the land be managed once the extraction is complete? As the proposed project is on a sensitive environmental area, the impact on the water alone is enough to refuse this project. Water is a fragile `resource' that requires careful management to be used by this generations and intergeneration's. The environment and the people depend on this resource to survive more than gas. I urge you to seriously consider the consequence and impacts of this project in the real world rather than the figures on paper.

Finally, I would like to sharing this to express my sadness. Please listen to the song if you can (Down the Line by Jose Gonzalez)

I see problems down the line
I know that I'm right
There was a dirt upon your hands
Doing the same mistake twice
Making the same mistake twice
Come on over and be so caught up
It's not about compromising
I see problems down the line
I know that I'm right
I see darkness down the line
I know it's hard to fight
There was a dirt upon your hands
Doing the same mistake twice
Making the same mistake twice
Come on over
Be so caught up, it's all about compromise
I see problems down the line
I know that I'm right
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
Don't let the darkness eat you up
SONGWRITERS
GONZALEZ, JOSE
PUBLISHED BY
LYRICS © SONY/ATV MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC

I am opposed to this project because I do not believe that CSG mining is the way to go in this particular place (or any place for that matter) as it is the largest intact temperate woodland in eastern Australia. It is a sensitive ecosystem that would be decimated by any mining. It is a refuge for so many creatures in a heavily cleared agricultural area. And don't let me start on the Great Artesian Basin and what may potentially occur if this idiotic project goes ahead, we'll be here for a week as I am well versed in the geography and the geology of this area. NO FRACKING WAY.