Narrabri Gas

Dear Ms McNally,
I Name withheld, Do not Give consent to the Narrabri gas project.
I am writing to express my complete objection to the Narrabri gas project. It should NOT be approved under any conditions. It should be subjected to peer review in its entirety. There are so many reasons that the Narrabri gas project should not be given approval. I feel so strongly about this to a point where it is affecting my mental health. I feel so fearful about this industry.
I lived in Baradine as my father worked for forestry commission. I was taken to places all over the Pilliga forest and this is a place of many fond childhood memories of picnicking bush walking and enjoying nature in all its many forms. And it represents for me a special place that I have been fond of and had a connection to and I have visited many times in my life since I was a child. As a child I was taught what a valuable resource the Pilliga Forest is. I was also taught that it was a State resource that should be managed and protected for the people of New South Wales. A gas industry the forest at risk. I do not think the Narrabri gas project is not how this resource should be managed. I believe it should remain a forest and not become a gas field.
1. Water protection great artesian basin
2. Aboriginal cultural heritage protection
3. Forest ecological protection
4. Farmland
5. Light Pollution - Siding springs observatory
6. Health- protection of community health
7. Mental health
8. Social Impact
9. Endangered species
10. Economical
11. Gas free communities declarations. In the past 4 and a half years, One Hundred and one communities surveyed, covering an area of 3.28 million hectares, in Nine Local government areas surrounding the Pilliga, A overwhelmingly 96% declared their regions gas free communities.
12. No social licence.


I object to the Narrabri Gas Project. It should not be approved under any conditions whatsoever.

As requested by the Mayor of Narrabri Shire, Councillor Cathy Redding, the Narrabri Gas Project EIS should be subjected to a peer review in its entirety.

The Narrabri Gas Project is the largest development ever proposed under the modern planning system, and four times the size of the only other two CSG projects assessed and approved in NSW.

Santos proposes up to 850 wells on 425 well pads over 95,000 hectares. This is more than four times the size of either of the previously approved CSG projects in NSW. The proposal includes a gas processing facility for compression dehydration and treatment of gas, a water management facility for storage and treatment of produced water and brine, possible additional power generation on site, continual flaring (burning off of gas) at two locations, an infrastructure corridor through the forest between Leewood and Bibblewindi, expansion of worker accommodation, discharge of waste water into Bohena Creek, irrigation with treated water and landfill burial of tens of thousands of tonnes of salt.

Santos says construction is expected to start in early 2018, with first gas scheduled for 2019/20, but also make clear it has not decided to go ahead with the project at all. If it goes ahead, it will continue for at least 20 years.

1. Hazard and risk assessment inadequate: I object to the Narrabri Gas Project on the grounds that Santos has not properly assessed the major hazards and risks of the project, in that it has incorrectly applied the techniques of EPP33 and HIPAP 4, when the correct legislation it needs to comply with is Chapter 10 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 - Major Hazard Facilities.

EPP33 and HIPA4 are no longer the relevant legislative standards applicable to major gas/LNG processing plants in NSW. The correct legislation is the Work Health and Safety Act.

Leewood gas processing plant needs to be regulated as a licenced major hazard facility and undertake safety case assessment as required by the Work Health and Safety regulation 2011. Santos will be handling over 10% of a `Schedule 15' chemical i.e. methane. In addition, the gas processing equipment, wells, and compressor stations will generate air toxics. They should be adequately safety-cased.

This legislation requires notification to WorkSafe NSW, licensing, and production of a detailed safety case to ensure onsite and offsite risks to the public, workers, property and the environment are MINIMISED (as low as reasonably practicable).

The tests applied by the guidelines EPP33 and HIPAP4 are INADEQUATE to ensure safety and risk minimisation to the nearby suburbs of Narrabri. It is noted that a primary school, Narrabri West, is within a few kilometres of the active gas field and approximately 10 kilometres from the Leewood gas processing facility.

Santos has not adequately assessed, and as a consequence, not adequately mitigated the risks to the public, workers, plant and the environment of methane explosion, catastrophic toxic untreated produced water loss of containment, catastrophic air toxics cloud production and plant failure such as well blow outs, pipeline rupture, gas processing plant failure, compressor failure etc.

The Project should be rejected out of hand as inadequately assessed.

I note that even using the incorrect and out-dated legislative techniques, Santos has identified at least one `sensitive receptor' 350 metres from the boundary of Leewood at risk from `uncontrolled containment of gases'.

The Melbourne Energy Institute report noted methane had been found to pose "a safety hazard, compromises water quality, can damage pumps and impacts the yield" of affected water bores.

It said "the integrity of dedicated gas wells and other existing bores that were not designed to prevent migratory emissions is an area of concern" and the geology of the Condamine aquifer "increases the risk of migratory emissions occurring".

Helen Bender, whose family owns two properties near the Condamine River at Chinchilla, said they had lost three water bores due to increased methane levels.

"The methane emissions were so high ... they were decommissioned ... capped and sealed," she said, adding that hundreds of water bores in the Surat Basin had been affected by gas.

Further, Santos has identified a `moderate' level of bushfire risk with a potential to cause large bushfires. Again, this risk has been subjectively assessed and claimed mitigation measures are un-tested. Santos's own `risk assessment' may not be acceptable to the surrounding community and protected bushland areas.

There is no analysis whatsoever of lack of containment of air toxics from either catastrophic or normal operation of the gas processing plant at Leewood.

Santos has failed to adequately assess the safety of the untreated toxic coal seam gas produced water dams which are proposed to be re-built at Bibblewindi, nor of the risk of flood or loss of containment at the vast Leewood brine storage dams. Both of these areas risk contamination of the Namoi catchment area and the Narrabri town water source.

Unless an adequate safety case is approved by WorkSafe NSW in accordance with licensing requirements of the Major Hazard facility regulations, this project must be rejected out of hand and NOT approved.

2. Lack of detail: Santos' EIS does not provide maps indicating where these 850 wells and the lines and infrastructure that run between and around them will go. Santos is seeking consent for this gasfield on the promise that it will decide where the wells will go afterward using a "Field Development Protocol." No project has ever been assessed this way before in NSW and the constraints Santos propose are weak and subject to change later on. This is not an appropriate way to assess the largest development project ever undertaken under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Government must insist that Santos release details to the public about the placement of its wells, pipelines and some other infrastructure.

I also draw your attention to the Aquifer section and the sticky note. I believe that Santos has not properly identified all the aquifers, their depths, behaviour, containing layers and conductivity with the surrounding aquifers or surface water systems as full or even at all, as is directed in the Exploration Licence attached.

3. No economic justification: The significant harm on the social, environmental and economic values of the Narrabri Shire and New South Wales that this project will inflict needs to be weighed against the economic justification for the project, but there is no such economic justification. Santos is one of several large gas companies that threw the east coast gas market and the industries that rely on it into turmoil by opening up CSG fields in Queensland and contracting to sell more gas than those fields can produce to overseas customers. They drove up the price of gas and are plundering supplies previously available to manufacturers and power stations.

The gas produced at Narrabri might be as little as 4.9% of the volume contracted for sale out of Gladstone. It's not going to bring down prices. In fact, it will force prices up, because unconventional gas like CSG is so expensive to produce and yields are so low. Research undertaken by gas company AGL shows that gas from the Pilliga would be the most expensive gas of anywhere in the current east coast gas market. The number of jobs the project will support once the construction is over is just 145. Weighed against damage to the land, and the Great Artesian Basin, this makes no sense. We need sustainable jobs, not plunder for profit.

4. Risk to irreversible damage to Groundwater and the Great Artesian Basin (GAB): Santos' project is expected to remove 37.5GL of groundwater over the life of the gasfield, mostly in the early years. The coal seam needs to be dewatered to release the gas, but this aquifer lies beneath the Pilliga Sandstone, part of the Great Artesian Basin recharge. Santos' EIS admits that the project will result in a loss of water from the GAB recharge aquifer over time. CSG in Queensland has drawn down GAB aquifers already. We can't afford to risk this crucial resource.

The very first Chapter (00) of the EIS, is the whole crux of this entire EIS.


Santos has spent over 90% on this EIS trying to convince the Community and those who are ultimately charged with the decision, that this Project will not impact the waters, the air, the fauna and flora and the humans on and close to the surface of the Great Artesian Basin in an area known as the Southern Recharge of that Basin, that this Project is not going to affect that area in any way.


Gas and produced extracted water heavy in salts is coming from the coal layers within the Gunnedah/Oxley Basin and that this basin runs under the GAB.


It is equally true that this extracted gas and water are both treated and stored as well as being distributed in one form or another on top of the GAB (Projects Infrastructure and disposal).


The area that this EIS covers is termed the Southern Recharge of the Great Artesian Basin and is a MAJOR RECHARGE AREA for that basin, otherwise it would have another descriptive terminology.


Therefore the Narrabri Gas Project is LOCATED in a MAJOR RECHARGE AREA.

5. Salt - no safe solution for disposal: The water removed from the ground by Santos will be treated, but this creates another problem: what to do with the salt? Peak salt production at Narrabri CSG will be 115 tonnes per day, or two and a half B-double truckloads per day. In the peak year, this would mean the creation of 41,900 tonnes of salt for disposal, which Santos says will take place in landfill.

6. Aboriginal cultural heritage and the Pilliga: The Pilliga is a spiritual, cultural and social icon for Gomeroi/Gamilaraay people. Fragmentation and industrialisation cuts people off from their heritage and connection to country.

7. Biodiversity and the Pilliga: The Pilliga is also the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales. Santos propose clearing nearly 1,000ha of the Pilliga, including habitat for critically endangered Regent honeyeater and for koalas, which are already in decline in the Pilliga. Spread across the whole forest, this clearing will fragment much larger areas of habitat. The gasfield will clear breeding habitat for Pilliga Mouse, which lives nowhere else, and breeding habitat for other wildlife. It will fragment and degrade the forest. Without specific information about where the wells and lines will be located, a proper ecological impact assessment can't be completed. Regardless, the Pilliga is a cherished natural and cultural icon and must be protected from becoming an industrial gasfield.

There are koalas in the Project Area but Santos EIS failed to identify them. Chapter 15 "Terrestrial Ecology Impact assessment" is inadequate and has failed to identify recently observed species. Santos's flora and fauna surveys were also inadequate. Koalas are a threatened species. I object to this Project on the grounds that terrestrial ecological impacts have not been adequately assessed and mitigated. Following a review of Chapter 15 of the Narrabri Gas Project (NGP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a number of serious omissions within the assessment are evident, and several questions regarding the adequacy of the assessment remain unresolved, in particular:

* The adequacy of the methodology used to describe direct impacts is questionable. The lack of a development footprint by which impact could be measured according to `whole of government' guidelines gives uncertainty to the outcomes.

* Levels of indirect impact have been significantly under-estimated. Using fox predation as a measure, pre-mitigation levels of indirect impact should be at least doubled in magnitude, based on available evidence.

* Survey effort for some key fauna species appears to be deficient and would have adversely affected the ability of the EIS to adequately account for some species.

* A NSW and Commonwealth-listed threatened ecological community White Box Blakely's Red Gum-Yellow Box Woodland (and derived native grassland) has been mis-identified and presumed to be not present in the study area. New data confirms its presence along Bohena Creek.

* The description of important habitat for a number of key fauna, such as the Regent Honeyeater, Pilliga Mouse, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby and Five-clawed Worm-skink does not appear to be accurate.

* New information regarding the presence of the Koala in the study area discounts the assertion made in the EIS that it is not currently present.

* Due to deficiencies in the survey and assessment for two `matters for further consideration' (Regent Honeyeater and Five-clawed Worm-skink) statutory requirements under the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy have not been met.

* Direct impacts upon Brigalow Park State Conservation Area remain uncertain as do the magnitude of indirect impacts upon the adjacent Nature Reserve and existing corridors.

* A Biodiversity Offset Strategy does not provide any surety for how well it will `retire' the impact of the Project because the strategy provided in the EIS does not provide any like-for-like land-based offsets apart from an unproven rehabilitation plan and rests on the hypothetical efficacy of a feral animal control proposal. The suitability of the offset package with respect to the statutory requirements under the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy is poor. Based on these findings, the Secretary for the Environment should reject this part of the overall Project assessment as being data-deficient and inadequate under the terms of NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy or request the matters outlined above be addressed by the proponent.

8. Social and health impacts: Santos' social impact assessment is three years old and utterly inadequate. The Compendium of health studies produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York shows mounting evidence for health damage by unconventional gas operations, including water contamination and respiratory illness. The Government must insist that Santos conduct a proper health impact assessment including modelling exposure pathways, reviewing literature and engagement with the Narrabri community. In Narrabri, this project will have negative impacts on cost-of-living, and the labour and housing markets. The latter is cited in as a benefit of the project but it will not benefit low-

income renters. The effect of the project on cost-of-living in the Shire needs to be modelled, assessed and considered, as do the labour dynamics of the project. The project entirely surrounds Yarrie Lake, and Santos propose that wells might come as close as 200m from the Lake.

9. Risks to Air quality: The air quality assessment fails to include health-damaging fine particulate pollution with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (known as PM2.5). With diesel generators at each well pad and at the water treatment and gas compression plants, there will be significant PM2.5 emissions. The air quality assessment and greenhouse section also fail to model the likely substantial escape of fugitive methane emissions.

What I will draw your attention to, is the very last paragraph about the outgassing from the produced water.


It is a pity the the EPA/CSIRO could not check the water balance tanks located at the gas fields themselves and the big tank at Bibblewindi. All have open tops and when viewed with the right background have a shimmer coming off them, and have smells: either a heavy coal smell or a Hydrogen sulphide smell emitting from them, so there is a outgassing from the water due to depressurisation of the water at these locations that is releasing the trapped gases including the above mentioned and Methane (which cannot be smelled).


Most of the highest peak CH4 concentrations were measured in close proximity to several CSG wells within the Bibblewindi region of the Pilliga State Forest and the Tintsfield area to the north (the emissions rates from the two Bibblewindi wells were measured separately, as discussed below). Another large spike of about 6.8 ppm CH4 was detected further south in the Dewhurst region during May 2015, which was most likely also due to emissions from a

well about 100m away, but we were unable to positively confirm the source with on-pad measurements at the time.


10. Compressor stations: Compressor stations pose dangers due to fugitive emissions, excessive noise and risk of explosions. Experience has shown in Australia and elsewhere globally, that the number of compressor stations may increase. We do not rely on current projections of only two compressor stations for this project.

11. Light pollution- scientific and tourism significance of the Dark sky: light pollution from flares, compressor stations and the water treatment plant will ruin the dark sky needed by the internationally renowned Siding Spring Observatory.

Ref: EIS Appendix Q (GHD) and section 5.3.3; SSD 14_6456


Santos has failed to ensure that vital astronomical assets of the Commonwealth of Australia, and 50 other international research institutions, are not detrimentally impacted by the operation of a large gas field and gas processing equipment to the north of Siding Spring.


Over the years, major public funds have been invested in these world class facilities for astronomy. Australian taxpayers and science institutions are rightly deserving of protection of this asset.


There is no recognition of the cumulative impact of future expansion from PEL238 to other gas licence areas much closer to the observatory.


Santos has not proposed adequate mitigation measures to protect the observatory operations, particularly in not ensuring the clarity of the night sky from light pollution impacting negatively on visible light telescopy, and from not preventing an increase in chemical air pollution impacts on delicate instrumentation and mirror surfaces. It has also not recognised or mitigated chemical air pollution impacts on the Narrabri radio telescope facilities.


There is no recognition in the Santos EIS that air pollution (Chapter 18) at times will concentrate in certain weather conditions, such as during temperature inversions or cloudy, still nights and drift southward towards the observatory. Air pollution from gas fields is well-documented but has not been correctly identified in Chapter 18. It comprises methane, ethane, butane, and some higher hydrocarbons that can form ozone smog in sunlight, especially mixed with flaring combustion products like nitrous oxide. There is also hydrogen sulphide. This air pollution is not documented in the EIS by Santos. Gas field smog is highly corrosive on delicate instrumentation and can cause smog haze.


Santos have failed to propose adequate mitigation measures to minimise the impact of light pollution from flaring operations - in fact, no flare shielding is proposed. Two major flare stacks will likely operate continuously at Bibblewind and Leewood. Santos has under-estimated the likely continuous operation of these stacks and has not proposed adequate shielding.


Santos has under-estimated the amount of light pollution and has contradictory statements in the EIS about the number of flares - at one point it is stated that there will be `up to 6' (5.3.3) pilot well flares, but in other parts of the EIS it is estimated over 25 pilot flares (Greenhouse Gas Chapter 24) will be operational at any time.

The NSW EPA recommends that flare stacks be shielded but this is not promised by Santos.

Chapter Q mentions the potential high light pollution impact of major flare events but `talks down' the frequency of such events. This is NOT the experience in the QLD coal seam gas fields. The Santos EIS does not reflect practical on the ground experience of coal seam gas field operations.

The reality of gas fields is that gas supply restrictions mean that gas flaring can occur whenever the market is not drawing gas from the Project. This means that flaring can be a constant feature of an operational gas field. Claims by Santos that flaring will be minimal are simply not supportable.

It is inconceivable that the negative impacts of the Project on Siding Spring would be acceptable to Australian and international astronomers nor to the Australian public who have heavily invested in these world class facilities.

I do not consider light and air pollution that will be caused by the Project has been effectively mitigated by Santos's proposed mitigation measures.

12. Climate change: recent research by the University of Melbourne Energy Institute shows that Australia may be dramatically under-estimating the fugitive methane emissions from unconventional gas, including coal seam gas. It's not needed or useful as a source of energy: we have the technology we need to replace gas with renewable energy sources.

Fugitive emissions have not been properly or fully assessed by Santos in the EIS. I refer you to this Report: CSG A 'POTENTIAL CLIMATE DISASTER' "Methane emissions gain less attention than emissions of carbon dioxide in the climate change debate, yet, when it comes to global warming, methane matters.

KEY POINTS from the report:

· CSG extraction could increase uncontrolled gas releases

· Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases

· CSG not yet proven to be cleaner than coal


CONCLUSION:


In communities which have been polled on the subject of whether coal seam gas, ie unconventional gas, is appropriate for approval in NSW, in all but one known case over 90% of those polled said they want their community to remain gasfield free.


The above is a summary of my reasons for objecting to the Narrabri Gas Project.


I object to this project in its entirety.

I am begging you to say no so that you may save me from potentially going to jail. I promise that I will continue to oppose the CSG industry in New South Wales. I will stand up with the thousands of people that I have met personally that have expressed opposition to the project if approved communities will stand together in practice of civil disobedience.. We will continue to bear witness to the destruction that will reign in this region if this project is to go ahead. Peacefully I will always object to the Narrabri gas project.
Sincerely
Name with held
5/22/2017

SUBMISSION

To Executive Director
Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project (SSD 6456)

The Pilliga Forest is the largest temperate woodland remaining in Australia. It comprises woodlands of Narrow-leaf Ironbark, Broad-leaf Ironbark, Pilliga Box and Bimble Box, as well as many other plant communities including Brigalow, Green Mallee and Broombush scrublands that have been cleared from other parts of the Central West of NSW.

The Pilliga woodlands are home to more than 900 plant species, including at least 12 rare and threatened plants. There are 14 frog species, 32 mammals (including 12 bats) about 50 reptiles and over 200 bird species. Pilliga woodlands support 22 threatened animal species (Glossy Black Cockatoo, Regent Honeyeater, Gilbert’s Whistler, Painted Honeyeater, Turquoise Parrot, Barking Owl, Masked Owl, Malleefowl, Square-tailed Kite, Black-breasted Buzzard, Bush Stone Curlew, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Squirrel Glider, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby, Rufous Bettong, Pilliga Mouse, Greater Long-eared Bat, Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat, Little Pied Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat, Eastern Cave Bat). It’s not a suitable place for coal seam gas (CSG) field development.

It's inappropriate to fragment and degrade the Pilliga’s woodlands with CSG infrastructure and roads as proposed by Santos. A network of intersecting roads and pipelines, water extraction, lines of wells, chemical intrusions, structures, work sites of the proposed gas field will bring ruin the Pilliga woodland ecosystems.

The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) aquifers have intake areas in the Pilliga forest that must be protected.

Recharge of the Pilliga aquifer will become impossible due to the proposed quantities of water extraction required for coal seam gas (CSG) development. The GAB and the integrity of the intake bed strata must take priority over CSG production in the Pilliga. Fracking of the coal seam will compromise the GAB strata. It fracking is a contingent part of the proposed project, and Santos must be refused consent.

Damage to the GAB will have dire consequences, such as loss hydrostatic pressure in the artesian wellheads of the GAB. Water is gold for the agriculture and grazing Central West NSW and region is heavily dependent upon access to the GAB. The GAB is also essential to the survival of unique mound spring ecosystems located further west. Any disruption to the fine balance of groundwater and its replenishment has ripple effects well beyond calculation or modelling by Santos. The regional economy and ecology are dependent on the GAB and the GAB must not be jeopardised.

After considering the environmental constraints of the Pilliga forest and hazards related to CSG production and the GAB, I request that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment recommends refusal of development consent of this Santos proposal in the Pilliga.

There should be No CSG infrastructure in the Willala Wilderness Area; areas of old growth woodland must be protected, as well as all endangered ecological communities, and threatened plant and animal species habitats. Adequate protection of these and other heritage values of the Pilliga woodlands will be impossible if this CSG proposal is approved.

I also believe that the natural dark night sky will be compromised by light pollution from gas flares and CSG lighting infrastructure. Dark night skies are essential for the effective operation of the internationally renowned Siding Springs Observatory located nearby.

The CSG industry has proven itself unable to effectively rehabilitate the very extensive areas it has mined, leaving many clearings and infrastructure in forests and farmlands across NSW and Queensland. The industry has shown itself to be incapable of removing its fence lines, tanks, dams, quarries, access roads, accommodation and clearings should also be removed from the mined out areas. Santos must be refused development consent.

I hope you will give my representations serious consideration and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,
Maureen King
6/36 Centennial Avenue
LANE COVE NSW 2066

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project (SSD 6456)

The Pilliga Forest is the largest temperate woodland remaining in Australia. It comprises woodlands of Narrow-leaf Ironbark, Broad-leaf Ironbark, Pilliga Box and Bimble Box, as well as many other plant communities including Brigalow, Green Mallee and Broombush scrublands that have been cleared from other parts of the Central West of NSW.

The Pilliga woodlands are home to more than 900 plant species, including at least 12 rare and threatened plants. There are 14 frog species, 32 mammals (including 12 bats) about 50 reptiles and over 200 bird species. Pilliga woodlands support 22 threatened animal species (Glossy Black Cockatoo, Regent Honeyeater, Gilbert's Whistler, Painted Honeyeater, Turquoise Parrot, Barking Owl, Masked Owl, Malleefowl, Square-tailed Kite, Black-breasted Buzzard, Bush Stone Curlew, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Squirrel Glider, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby, Rufous Bettong, Pilliga Mouse, Greater Long-eared Bat, Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat, Little Pied Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat, Eastern Cave Bat). It's not a suitable place for coal seam gas (CSG) field development.

It's inappropriate to fragment and degrade the Pilliga's woodlands with CSG infrastructure and roads as proposed by Santos. A network of intersecting roads and pipelines, water extraction, lines of wells, chemical intrusions, structures, work sites of the proposed gas field will bring ruin the Pilliga woodland ecosystems.

The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) aquifers have intake areas in the Pilliga forest that must be protected.

Recharge of the Pilliga aquifer will become impossible due to the proposed quantities of water extraction required for coal seam gas (CSG) development. The GAB and the integrity of the intake bed strata must take priority over CSG production in the Pilliga. Fracking of the coal seam will compromise the GAB strata. It fracking is a contingent part of the proposed project, and Santos must be refused consent.

Damage to the GAB will have dire consequences, such as loss hydrostatic pressure in the artesian wellheads of the GAB. Water is gold for the agriculture and grazing Central West NSW and region is heavily dependent upon access to the GAB. The GAB is also essential to the survival of unique mound spring ecosystems located further west. Any disruption to the fine balance of groundwater and its replenishment has ripple effects well beyond calculation or modelling by Santos. The regional economy and ecology are dependent on the GAB and the GAB must not be jeopardised.

After considering the environmental constraints of the Pilliga forest and hazards related to CSG production and the GAB, I request that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment recommends refusal of development consent of this Santos proposal in the Pilliga.

There should be No CSG infrastructure in the Willala Wilderness Area; areas of old growth woodland must be protected, as well as all endangered ecological communities, and threatened plant and animal species habitats. Adequate protection of these and other heritage values of the Pilliga woodlands will be impossible if this CSG proposal is approved.

I also believe that the natural dark night sky will be compromised by light pollution from gas flares and CSG lighting infrastructure. Dark night skies are essential for the effective operation of the internationally renowned Siding Springs Observatory located nearby.

The CSG industry has proven itself unable to effectively rehabilitate the very extensive areas it has mined, leaving many clearings and infrastructure in forests and farmlands across NSW and Queensland. The industry has shown itself to be incapable of removing its fence lines, tanks, dams, quarries, access roads, accommodation and clearings should also be removed from the mined out areas. Santos must be refused development consent.

I hope you will give my representations serious consideration and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,
Melina Amerasinghe

I OBJECT to the development of the Santos Pilliga CSG field on the grounds that the science underpinning the risks and impacts assessment is still to be proven worthy in regards to the potential significant impacts and irreversible loss of groundwater.

Having served for two years on the Independent Expert Scientific Committee for large scale coal mining and CSG i was assured by my fellow experts in their fields (groundwater modelling being among them) that given the science has not been shown to be sound i.e. it is either very good or very poor - the most appropriate way to describe CSG is we are undertaking a large industrial experiment in the Australian landscape with irreversible consequences if the science is not adequate.

Given the potential loss of our groundwater systems, fundamental to prospering in the Australian regional areas, most rational planners would assess that this is normally a risk not worth taking. Indeed the level of anxiety seen from the people who live, work and thrive in these areas is palpable, and, without the security of sound science to guide decision makers, warranted.

For me there is no point in reviewing every detail in the EIS as my knowledge and judgment of the science used to model risks, impacts and consequences cannot give us a definitive, or even close, assessments 30-40-50 years from now. With the de-watering and de-pressurization of the coal seams at depth connections to adjoining aquifers and water bearing strata determines that water will flow to the area of lowest pressure. To model, and make predictions on, these consequences over a 50 year period is a nonsense.

Given CSG has not been operating in any Australian context over this period of time i.e. from inception to field depletion, it is very difficult to determine how any sound conclusions can be drawn of these potential impacts.

The value of groundwater to the longevity of human occupation in regional areas cannot be usurped by an industry that could remove access to that groundwater.

This development must NOT go ahead.

To the Department Of Planning NSW'

I object to the development of a gas field/s within or nearby the Pilliga Forest, including any infrastructure required to support gasfields, be it, electricity stations, water facilities, various pipelines etc.

I am very concerned about many of the things associated with developing a gas field anywhere in NSW and in particular within the Pilliga itself as it is a sandstone filtered recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin.

I have met distressed landowners, farmers, indigenous landowners, who have sacred water sites, and other sites, who are in threat of having toxic destroyed water, land, air, habitat, forever.

One farmer has a bore on their property and has had to complete a full CSG test on their water so they can have their own Base Line Data just in case the development is approved.

This level of testing is very expensive but will prove invaluable should in the highly likely event contamination of our aquifers should occur. As it turns out, their bore samples are considered some of the cleanest water in the world. His relative's bore on their property located nearby, returned very similar results.

This on its own merit should prompt the water alarm bells and prevent this development however, there are many more reasons why it should not go ahead.

Their property value and all others anywhere affected by gas stations, will go down, as all have seen in Queensland. No insurance company will offer them any protection against the negative impacts of the industry on their properties, being,
bore contamination or dewatering the aquifer my bore is associated with, or surface contamination.

The Pilliga Forest is also a highly fire prone area. Santos will construct flaring facilities within the forest which will of course increase potential ignition and risk of bush fires.

A bush fire within the Pilliga can be devastating enough without the possibility of it burning thru 850 gas well pads and all the associated infrastructure.

The Rural Fire Service are not trained to fight fires within or even near a gas field and as volunteers should not be expected to. This will further increase their risk as property owners at an extreme level, in a gas field as the Rural Fire Servie will not be able to come to anyone's aid, or those that they love and care for, young and old.

This extreme (fire risk) fact alone, never mind the toxic ruination risk, will definintely change all properties to being uninsureable, including their infrastructure.

The Pilliga is also the last fragment of a much greater woodland in western NSW and as such is a haven for flora and fauna, many of them being rare or endangered. Infact there are still new species being discovered such as the skink worm and a new species of Tea tree discovered by David Paull, their local ecologist, only this year.

Only 2 weeks ago, a Little Bittern was recorded on a Santos site that hasn't been recorded there for 17 years.

This forest must be preserved as part of out natural heritage and should be considered a haven and breeding ground in order to reverse the catastrophic species decline we have seen in NSW and Australia of our flora and fauna.

Santos has a history of poor practice not only within the Pilliga with aquifer contamination, pond spills and radioactive waste. Including in Queensland they still have no way of disposing of toxic salts but to bury them, they have destroyed farmers bores and contaminated their land and dump poorly treated water into waterways.

Santos was responsible the damage in Java they should be prosecuted and held accountable. If that is what they refer to as "Best Practice" then our local community and the whole of NSW should be very concerned indeed.

The David Suzuki Foundation and St. Francis Xavier University recently completed the first on-the-ground measurement of methane emissions from oil and gas sites in northeastern B.C., more than 80 per cent of which use fracking. We found that emissions are at least 2.5 times higher than the government claims.

Methane is a greenhouse gas 84 times as potent as carbon dioxide, making this a serious problem.

CSG is potentially far worse for the environment than even coal. It is renewable resources that this country needs to move forward and combat climate change, not fossil fuels. Methane could easily be extracted from methane digestors if the infrastructure is set up on our sewerage treatment plants,
Feedlots, Abattoirs and refuse sites all over NSW.

This is potentially the greatest source of renewable methane that is otherwise wasted and contributing to green house gas emissions further compounding an already massive problem.

Drilling gas wells in Australia will do nothing to combat climate change. The integrity of CSG wells is poor at best, many of which fail within the first 10 years and the vast majority will fail within 50 years.

Steel bore casings rust within a saline environment and the concrete shroud will be subject to concrete cancer in this environment. Santos has not made clear how this will be mitigated within their EIS.

How the integrity of these wells will be managed in the long term and who will be responsible for the long term management is of distressing and great concern, not only for landowners, but the entire community, their children, grandchildren and the future generations that live, work and farm these lands.

One of the largest employers within their shire is the AAO, Australian Anglo Observatory. This multi million dollar facility requires a dark sky to operate. CSG flaring, 50 m tall towers with 30 m high flame on top will be a massive source of light pollution.

Already mining operations on the Liverpool plains create an obnoxious source of light pollution. These flaring facilities could potentially lead to the closure of the AAO affecting local employment, tourism and our local economy.

It will also deter international investment in these facilities and the money that would otherwise be spent in NSW may go to WA or worse overseas.

There are also massive health risks for people living within or near a gas field as has been identified in QLD. Local air quality and the rain water will be affected.

This is not only an unmanageable risk to the local population but will have a roll on effect upon the local ecology. Our endemic Flora and Fauna will not be immune to the negative impacts of this and will further stress an already declining population.

There are many more reasons why this project should not go ahead, I have listed only a few. Overall though, as Australians we have a right to clean air and clean water, as do our children and grandchildren. This project presents far to many infinite ongoing risks that haven't been identified or suitably addressed.

I know a local resident/landowner who has never been approached by Santos asking whether they approve of what they are doing. They have made no attempt to address landowners concern, and very little with the larger community.

How Santos claim to have any sort of social licence is pure propaganda. The entire community does not support this.

I urge you to consider very seriously the expense and outlay with this proposed very expansive gas project, it is not supported by many in this great country of ours, and all will not allow this to happen.

We are the people for the people by the people.

We have a right to protect that which belongs to us all, given by nature, Water, a precious resource that is not define-able by price, shareholders, toxic industry that moves in and moves on out, approach, leaving behind irreversible destruction to our entire countrie's, Water Resource,

"The Great Artesian Basin".

We cannot keep living with Toxic destruction to our planet, it is our home collectively, belongs to all.

We are all ONE, we are ONE home, ONE planet, One people, our HOME, this small planet, belongs to us ALL.

No one person, is allowed to come onto our own payed for property, and destroy it by any means, so why should we
ALL ALLOW, ONE COMPANY, to DESTROY that which provides for all INHABITANTS of this ONE HOME, PLANET.

OUR FLORA, FAUNA, NATURAL RESOURCES,
THE AIR WE BREATHE, THE LAND WE GROW OUR FOOD WITH, AND OUR WATER THAT IS IN PRECIOUS LIMITED SUPPLY to our entire country, to SUPPORT our existence.

Please do not go ahead with this proposed 850 Gas Wells, we are already dealing with the aftermath of destruction in some areas of the Pilliga Forest and in our entire country wide, from this toxic Gas Industry, which has destroyed the personal lives of so many, their health, their equity and ownership of their properties and more.

I do not agree with this project

I object to the gas project as I want an awesome environment for my children to raise my grandchildren etc.
We don't need CSG for a better future we need a clean and healthy environment, it is our duty your duty to ensure we leave a future for our children.
With the knowledge we have you have of the damage CSG causes we would you would go down in history as the most negligent generation the world has ever seen if we approve these short-sighted projects for purely fiscal reasons, not a record I'll be very proud of for my future family.
Build more renewable invest in better ways to harness mother nature's elements but for Gods sake don't approve another coal project.

I object to the Santos Narrabri Gas project because:
1) The risk to the ground and surface water is too great to be contemplated.
The proponent argues that the risk of accidents is small. However, if or rather, when, a breach occurs it is practically impossible to rectify. Water in the short, medium and long term is far more valuable to the community and to the economy than goal seam gas, which has a limited future. Given the reality of climate change which is already affecting rain-fall regularity and volumes, any risk to water quality and security for people and agriculture is unacceptable.
The experience of CS Gas exploratory drilling and extraction in other Australian states and other countries has seen frequent instances of contamination of water supplies, from drilling accidents (through the ground water storage levels), fugitive methane from wells and from facilities storing contaminated water. In Queensland there have been devastating instances of contamination in farms affecting their viability. There is no reason to expect that Santos would be able to miraculously avoid any such breaches. It is also not clear where or how the material removed from water treated for re-use will be safely stored or otherwise disposed of. This also constitutes a risk of contamination to the local environment. Even the management of treated water for release into an ephemeral water course like the Bohena creek begs the question of how will large volumes of such water be safely stored until it can be discharged.
Worse, given the cuts suffered by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority over the past several years, the agency is limited to reacting to reports of breaches. It cannot monitor operations which have a risk of environmental pollution, no matter how serious the consequences, in any meaningful way least of all in an area as remote as Narrabri and Gunnedah and the Pillaga state forest. The risk of water contamination is magnified by the inability of the EPA to respond to any breach in a timely manner. This is not mitigated by the "regional groundwater monitoring network" because any such monitoring it seems will always identify breaches post factum.
2) This gas project is not needed and constitutes a significant financial risk to the taxpayers of NSW.
While there has been any amount of spin about shortages of supply of gas in Australian and NSW in particular, there is no actual shortage, and globally there is an oversupply which is depressing prices internationally, even as they increase locally because of the failure of market mechanisms and regulation in a cartel context. I refer the Dept of Planning to any number of public reports and comments about the Australian gas cartel and its gouging of the local demand for gas to the point of threatening the viability of the businesses of industrial consumers - see for example the comment of Michael West, respected business journalist.
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/gas-the-crisis-of-guile-and-greed/
The risk to NSW taxpayers in permitting this development is that the gas produced will not be sold at a profit in a falling market, where demand is further depressed by the transition of the energy market to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. The time-span for this project is projected to 20 years which seems singularly optimistic in the context of the increasing use of renewable energy sources as concerns about the impact of global warming grow. Fossil fuels will be seen as toxic and high business risk within the next decade.
CS Gas is not a clean energy fuel, and is notorious for fugitive emissions of methane which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The number of wells proposed for the development especially in the first few years in a falling gas market raises the risk of fugitive methane release to an unacceptable degree because of the likelihood of cutting corners as the producer seeks to realise a return on investment before the fuel is effectively banned. And this is proposed in a forested area whose value to the community and the environment is terms of heat mitigation and carbon capture is far outweighed by the return of gas sales, whether as jobs or actual dollars. The risk to the NSW taxpayers is a fire-sale of the whole development when the gas price falls from the factors identified above leaving the state to pick up the cost of remediation of the landscape and the management of contaminated materials in storage. Experience with the failure to put aside funds sufficient for remediation of coal mines which have closed and sold for a song leaving the state with the bill is a warning to us of the possible, nay, likely consequences of starting a big CSGas development like this in current global market conditions.
3) We cannot afford another fossil fuel development in the context of global warming.
CSGas is a fossil fuel which produces greenhouse gases when the whole world needs to reduce carbon emissions. Australia is highly susceptible to the adverse effects of global warming. We are experiencing greater and sustained increases in temperatures than many parts of the globe, already with effects felt in both drought and floods, high temperatures' adverse impacts on the population and the environment, and frequent and more damaging bushfires, dangerous storms and cyclones. This is affecting agriculture already and can be expected to do so more in the future if global warming continues and emissions are not curtailed. Australia cannot afford to extract more fossil fuels, whether gas or coal, whether for local or foreign use. The very short term profitability of one foreign-owned multi-national corporation should not be put ahead of the interests of the local population, the Australian public or the health of the planet.
For all the supposed consultation Santos has undertaken with the local population, the people of NSW have made it abundantly clear that they do not want CSGas extraction taking place at the expense of use of agricultural land. So has the local population. Large sections of the public understand the risk to the climate and the landscape both from global warming and projects like CSGas extraction and do not favour new projects. This is especially the case in agricultural districts. The social licence for the gas industry is diminishing and the experience of rising gas prices has not improved the public's view of the corporations which operate in this area, the more so since they pay minute amounts of tax in Australia compared to the billions of dollars in profits which are repatriated to the overseas controlling interests. We don't need this project and its costs and risks are too high for it to be approved.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Objection to the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project (SSD 6456)

The Pilliga Forest is the largest temperate woodland remaining in Australia. It comprises woodlands of Narrow-leaf Ironbark, Broad-leaf Ironbark, Pilliga Box and Bimble Box, as well as many other plant communities including Brigalow, Green Mallee and Broombush scrublands that have been cleared from other parts of the Central West of NSW.

The Pilliga woodlands are home to more than 900 plant species, including at least 12 rare and threatened plants. There are 14 frog species, 32 mammals (including 12 bats) about 50 reptiles and over 200 bird species. Pilliga woodlands support 22 threatened animal species (Glossy Black Cockatoo, Regent Honeyeater, Gilbert's Whistler, Painted Honeyeater, Turquoise Parrot, Barking Owl, Masked Owl, Malleefowl, Square-tailed Kite, Black-breasted Buzzard, Bush Stone Curlew, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Squirrel Glider, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby, Rufous Bettong, Pilliga Mouse, Greater Long-eared Bat, Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat, Little Pied Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat, Eastern Cave Bat). It's not a suitable place for coal seam gas (CSG) field development.

It's inappropriate to fragment and degrade the Pilliga's woodlands with CSG infrastructure and roads as proposed by Santos. A network of intersecting roads and pipelines, water extraction, lines of wells, chemical intrusions, structures, work sites of the proposed gas field will bring ruin the Pilliga woodland ecosystems.

The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) aquifers have intake areas in the Pilliga forest that must be protected.

Recharge of the Pilliga aquifer will become impossible due to the proposed quantities of water extraction required for coal seam gas (CSG) development. The GAB and the integrity of the intake bed strata must take priority over CSG production in the Pilliga. Fracking of the coal seam will compromise the GAB strata. It fracking is a contingent part of the proposed project, and Santos must be refused consent.

Damage to the GAB will have dire consequences, such as loss hydrostatic pressure in the artesian wellheads of the GAB. Water is gold for the agriculture and grazing Central West NSW and region is heavily dependent upon access to the GAB. The GAB is also essential to the survival of unique mound spring ecosystems located further west. Any disruption to the fine balance of groundwater and its replenishment has ripple effects well beyond calculation or modelling by Santos. The regional economy and ecology are dependent on the GAB and the GAB must not be jeopardised.

After considering the environmental constraints of the Pilliga forest and hazards related to CSG production and the GAB, I request that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment recommends refusal of development consent of this Santos proposal in the Pilliga.

There should be No CSG infrastructure in the Willala Wilderness Area; areas of old growth woodland must be protected, as well as all endangered ecological communities, and threatened plant and animal species habitats. Adequate protection of these and other heritage values of the Pilliga woodlands will be impossible if this CSG proposal is approved.

I also believe that the natural dark night sky will be compromised by light pollution from gas flares and CSG lighting infrastructure. Dark night skies are essential for the effective operation of the internationally renowned Siding Springs Observatory located nearby.

The CSG industry has proven itself unable to effectively rehabilitate the very extensive areas it has mined, leaving many clearings and infrastructure in forests and farmlands across NSW and Queensland. The industry has shown itself to be incapable of removing its fence lines, tanks, dams, quarries, access roads, accommodation and clearings should also be removed from the mined out areas. Santos must be refused development consent.

I hope you will give my representations serious consideration and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,
Yvonne Lollback

There is no rational justification for Santos or any other company to destroy prime agricultural land and the subterranean aquifer by gas extraction. The speculation that forward sells gas prior to guaranteeing supply is a commercial decision with attendant risk. The Pilliga region must not be sacrificed because of unwise decisions by the board and management.

Objection to the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project (SSD 6456)

The Pilliga Forest is the largest temperate woodland remaining in Australia. It comprises woodlands of Narrow-leaf Ironbark, Broad-leaf Ironbark, Pilliga Box and Bimble Box, as well as many other plant communities including Brigalow, Green Mallee and Broombush scrublands that have been cleared from other parts of the Central West of NSW.

The Pilliga woodlands are home to more than 900 plant species, including at least 12 rare and threatened plants. There are 14 frog species, 32 mammals (including 12 bats) about 50 reptiles and over 200 bird species. Pilliga woodlands support 22 threatened animal species (Glossy Black Cockatoo, Regent Honeyeater, GilbertÂ's Whistler, Painted Honeyeater, Turquoise Parrot, Barking Owl, Masked Owl, Malleefowl, Square-tailed Kite, Black-breasted Buzzard, Bush Stone Curlew, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Squirrel Glider, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby, Rufous Bettong, Pilliga Mouse, Greater Long-eared Bat, Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat, Little Pied Bat, Large-eared Pied Bat, Eastern Cave Bat). ItÂ's not a suitable place for coal seam gas (CSG) field development.

It's inappropriate to fragment and degrade the PilligaÂ's woodlands with CSG infrastructure and roads as proposed by Santos. A network of intersecting roads and pipelines, water extraction, lines of wells, chemical intrusions, structures, work sites of the proposed gas field will bring ruin the Pilliga woodland ecosystems.

The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) aquifers have intake areas in the Pilliga forest that must be protected.

Recharge of the Pilliga aquifer will become impossible due to the proposed quantities of water extraction required for coal seam gas (CSG) development. The GAB and the integrity of the intake bed strata must take priority over CSG production in the Pilliga. Fracking of the coal seam will compromise the GAB strata. It fracking is a contingent part of the proposed project, and Santos must be refused consent.

Damage to the GAB will have dire consequences, such as loss hydrostatic pressure in the artesian wellheads of the GAB. Water is gold for the agriculture and grazing Central West NSW and region is heavily dependent upon access to the GAB. The GAB is also essential to the survival of unique mound spring ecosystems located further west. Any disruption to the fine balance of groundwater and its replenishment has ripple effects well beyond calculation or modelling by Santos. The regional economy and ecology are dependent on the GAB and the GAB must not be jeopardised.

After considering the environmental constraints of the Pilliga forest and hazards related to CSG production and the GAB, I request that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment recommends refusal of development consent of this Santos proposal in the Pilliga.

There should be No CSG infrastructure in the Willala Wilderness Area; areas of old growth woodland must be protected, as well as all endangered ecological communities, and threatened plant and animal species habitats. Adequate protection of these and other heritage values of the Pilliga woodlands will be impossible if this CSG proposal is approved.

I also believe that the natural dark night sky will be compromised by light pollution from gas flares and CSG lighting infrastructure. Dark night skies are essential for the effective operation of the internationally renowned Siding Springs Observatory located nearby.

The CSG industry has proven itself unable to effectively rehabilitate the very extensive areas it has mined, leaving many clearings and infrastructure in forests and farmlands across NSW and Queensland. The industry has shown itself to be incapable of removing its fence lines, tanks, dams, quarries, access roads, accommodation and clearings should also be removed from the mined out areas. Santos must be refused development consent.

I hope you will give my representations serious consideration and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to object to the Narrabri gasfield plan

I find it totally unacceptable that the State government is pursuing the Narrabri I gasfield plan given that this could add significantly to our carbon dioxide emissions and boost climate change into uncharted territory.

I also object to clearing almost 1000ha of the Pilliga Forest, extracting over 35 billion litres of water and in so doing produce 500,000 tonnes of salt and drilling through and potentially irrevocably destroy important aquifers.

As a NSW resident and voter I DO NOT want this proposal approved.

· I DO WANT this government to stop destroying our natural environment by passing legislation which has the potential to accelerate land clearing.

· I DO WANT this government to better support the renewable energy sector and help us quickly transition to a carbon neutral economy.

· I DO WANT the department of Planning and Environment and the NSW Coalition Government to LISTEN to the people of NSW instead of forcing environmentally and socially destructive legislation and projects through our bureaucracies and Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Jacqui Marlow

To whom it may concern,

Coal seam gas extraction has been shown to be harmful and cause long-term, detrimental environmental issues time and time again. When will the government put the health and safety of it's people before the profits & greed of the corporations? I do not support the poisoning of our country, therefore I strongly object to this project.

I have not made a reportable political donation (as Q4 asks on submission form)
I agree to the statement made in Q5 on submission form.

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.
3. 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. The Pilliga is a re-charge point for the Great Artesian Basin!!!
4. Lead to large deliberate and emissions of methane from venting and leakage, adding to climate change.

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.

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. Have you spoken to any impacted residents in Queensland? Have you visited any impacted residents in Queensland?

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. We do NOT want to see NSW Police 'sponsored' by Santos in NSW as they are in QLD!!

It will cause economic upheaval in Narrabri and put agricultural industries at risk, as well as causing light pollution that will ruin the dark night sky needed by the internationally renowned Siding Spring Observatory.

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. The USA now has proof of fracking waste water causing EARTHQUAKES.

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

Signed,


Yours sincerely,
Tracey de Wet
16 Pardalote Place, Currumbin Waters QLD 4223

Dear Sir/Madam,

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project.

This project makes no sense. Clean technology is the way forward. I beg our government to stop damaging, even ruining people's lives, the water ( a rare commodity in inland Australia!), the innocent wildlife, the landscape, the heritage of the area, health (fracking has been proven to be dangerous), etc.
When will the government listen to the local community that spends years of their lives fighting greedy, untrustworthy giants who just bring destruction to their land?

Australia is awash with gas, we DO NOT NEED more fracking to happen!
What about climate change, what about all the methane to be released in the atmosphere if Santos clears a huge chunk of the beautiful Pilliga Forest???

I beg you to do the right thing by the farmers, the wildlife and the future of our land.

I object to the Narrabri coal seam gas project because;

Farmers, along with government funding, have capped and piped the majority of flowing bores at great expense to conserve an asset that is critical to the ongoing sustainability and profitability of western NSW. Including subsidies, it cost us over $1m to convert open flowing bore drains to tanks and troughs. This has increased overall production as well as managing feral animal control
Unrestricted use of Artesian water leading to the lowering of the water table will affect the viability and diversity of this region. Low rainfall areas such as this rely on ground water as there isn't enough runoff to fill dams.
There has been no guarantee from Santos that aquifers will not be contaminated with chemicals used in the process of gas extraction.
There is potential widespread contamination of farming land rendering it unusable for the production of food and fibre from overflowing evaporation ponds in the event of flooding
The ongoing social and economic impact of the gas project will devastate this region in the future if it goes ahead as there will not be any other viable industry able to exist after the gas has been removed. Government refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of what the implications will be if mining companies are not regulated properly on environmental issues.
There is also a total lack of transparency throughout the whole operation from both Santos and government

I have concerns about the impact on the groundwater, the disposal of the salt that will be generated and the methane gas leaking into the atmosphere from the Santos Narrabri Gas Project.
I think the potential environmental impact is not justified by the economic return generated by the project.
If however the project does proceed and NSW will have to wear the environmental damage caused, NSW should benefit from the gas produced and it should not be allowed to be exported.

I am making a personal submission
I am submitting my organisation's submission
Name: *

Title

First Name

Last Name
Please tick this box if you do not want your name published in the list of submitters on the department's website (see step 2, second dot point):

"Name withheld on request" will appear on the list, instead of your name.

Your details:


Organisation

Position in organisation

Email *
Address: *

Address 1

Address 2

Suburb - we will publish your suburb in the list of submitters with a link to your submission

State

Postcode
Submission: *
We will publish your submission including any personal information about you which you have chosen to include in your submission, on the department's website. Your submission can be either typed in the column below or uploaded.

I wish to object strongly to Santos' proposed Narrabri Gas Project which will involve the progressive development of a coal seam gas (CSG) field with up to 850 gas wells. I cannot believe any government which has the long term interests of its citizens agriculture and ecology at heart would even be considering allowing this project to go ahead. The Narrabri Gas Project threatens health, prime agricultural farmland, the largest reserve of remnant forest in NW NSW, the Great Artesian Basin on which so many communities depend - and which is a vitally important and massive groundwater body, millions of years in the making. In addition the renowned Siding Springs Observatory is dependent on the dark skies of the NW NSW region, which still offer some of the best observations of the our Milky Way and other galaxies and astronomical phenomena that can still be found on our increasingly over-urbanised world. Light pollution from CSG gas field flares would eventually ruin this vista making astronomy unviable. To sacrifice all this for the sake of a few decades of extreme energy when to all extents and purposes we need to be transitioning rapidly towards a renewable energy economy beggars belief. Surely NSW should learn from the ecological and public health disaster that is CSG in Queensland.
NSW must follow Victoria's example and BAN CSG outright!

In addition I object to this proposal for the following trains:

It will extract over 35 billion litres of toxic groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and in the early years will generate tens of thousands of tonnes of salt, for which there is no safe disposal plan.
It will clear close to 1,000 hectares of the Pilliga Forest, fragmenting the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife.
It will cause significant diversion of water from a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, which is a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.
It will lead to large deliberate and fugitive emissions of methane, adding to climate change.
It will 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.
It is not justified: Santos' own Coal Seam Gas export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable. 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.
It will cause economic upheaval in Narrabri and put agricultural industries at risk, as well as causing light pollution that will ruin the dark night sky needed by the internationally renowned Siding Spring Observatory.
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.

Yours Faithfully
Michael Houston

I am totally against Coal Seam Gas given the high risk in completely destroying the ground water. Even if the possibility is remote, it still exists and no money or job creations can justify the destruction of the environment. We cannot take our chances on this, especially ones you read up on the subject. Main stream media is useless.

To: the NSW Department of Planning and Environment
This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas EIS.

I object to this project.

Here's a few facts about the project you are planning;

- It will extract over 35 billion litres of toxic groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and in the early years will generate tens of thousands of tonnes of salt, for which there is no safe disposal plan.
- It will clear close to 1,000 hectares of the Pilliga Forest, fragmenting the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife.
- It will cause significant diversion of water from a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, which is a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.
- It will lead to large deliberate and fugitive emissions of methane, adding to climate change.
- It will 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.
- It is not justified: Santos' own Coal Seam Gas export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable. 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.
- It will cause economic upheaval in Narrabri and put agricultural industries at risk, as well as causing light pollution that will ruin the dark night sky needed by the internationally renowned Siding Spring Observatory.
- 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.

If you were to put your time into sustainable, alternate energy sources - there would be no need for CSG, that is destroying the Earth and Australia's health and culture. This is irreversible. Think the consequences through, you have alternatives so use them. Alternate energy has been researched by scientists for years and is proven to work, being accessible, cheap, and good for the environment. Take solar energy for example; giving all rooftops solar panels will remove the need for CGS along with all it's severely detrimental and proven effects.

Yours Sincerely