Narrabri Gas

To those considering the approval for the Narrabri Gas project,

I am deeply concerned about the impacts of coal seam gas exploration in the Pilliga region on ecosystem health and human health.

I am worried about the following possible impacts of coal seam gas exploration in the Pilliga:
- groundwater contamination in a region close to our agricultural food bowl (endangering human health and Australia's export potential)
- heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems, the effects of which are well documented. Such as its disruption of neurological and physiological function of plants and animals.
- methane gas emission, a greenhouse gas 27 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
- the clearing of precious tree cover and habitat in the Pilliga region which will increase erosion, increase risk of bushfires, remove a valuable carbon sink and devastate numerous native species.
- Interference in the sacred lands and sites of local Aboriginal People

I truly believe it would be incredibly irresponsible and short-sighted for this project to go ahead. Whether the project has an environmental management plan or not, ecosystems are fragile and interconnected and the slightest disruption can have devastating, far-reaching and irreversible consequences.

Furthermore, as our world hurtles towards 2 degrees of global warming and higher, the release of methane gas during gas extraction is a serious concern. With millions of climate refugees forecasted to be mobilised in the Pacific Islands and low lying areas of India and Pakistan, it is morally unacceptable to further invest in fossil fuel exploration. The cost of managing climate change will far exceed the profits made from this project.

In 50-100 years from now, when we are in the midst of a potential volatile world, people will ask, what did you do to stop this from happening?

What will your answer be?

You are writing the future, and you will never be able to erase this decision from history

When will people wake up and realise farming is what make community's and rural Australia. We live and breath every moment of this area and to put generations of hard work at risk with a gas well is a joke

No to gas

The Pilliga area could be ruined if the artisan basin is disturbed. We have renewable options that do not threaten the water and thus should use them.

I do not support this proposal/ project. I want to see sustainable renewable energy solutions for NSW.

The Narrabri Gas Project is a relatively short term project which defies all previous attempts by Government and land users to responsibly and sustainably manage our natural resources.
Under the Protection and the Environment Administration Act 1991, C.S.G. mining does not pass scrutiny as being sustainable development in regard to the foundation and process principles which clearly are not being met.
I am not anti mining but C.S.G. mining poses serious risks to land and water and its long term safety is not substantiated by adequate independent scientific data which the Governments own Chief Scientist (Mary O'Kane report 30 September, 2014, ) acknowledges.
This industry has a track record of contamination and unforeseen consequences. Government is ignoring these risks despite the knowledge that there are sager, cleaner alternative energy sources already available.
The Government already recognises groundwater as the only reliable, secure, cost effective water source for large parts of Australia, fundamental to the needs of all people but particularly to the survival of communities and agricultural production, of sustainable food.
We all have a responsibility as custodians of the land and water a fact our indigenous population knows all too well.
So this Narrabri Gas Project should be rejected. Future generations will be forever grateful.

I strongly object to this project on the grounds that NSW should invest in a more reliable and ultimately cheaper renewable energy than CSG. It will inflict environmental harm with the amount of toxic groundwater it will extract with no safe disposal plan for the tonnes of salt that will be generated.It will cause significant diversion of water from a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin (an invaluable water resource)
It is unconsionable that this project be allowed go ahead because of the clearing of close to 1000 hectares of the Pilliaga Forest , the largest temperate woodland in NSW.

When you know better, you do better.

We, Australians, have access to free education. We have access to technology. Most of us are more than capable of doing a Google search to find documents and images of damage caused by CSG. This debate shouldn't even exist. We know better. We can do better. Please, don't sell my children's future.

Devalued land for affected landholders is a major concern. As is the insurance issue ( all responsibility is with the landholder if there is an issue related to the pipe.)
Water contamination will have a severe impact on not only agricultural business but also the entire community.

I object to it for our earth

Distruction of forrested lands..use and negative impact on warer table and residual chemical imbalances left on environment. The rights of land owners and native custodians secondary to others that dont have the lands best intrest only monetary gain..csg mining should not go ahead

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
- The strategic need for the proposal is based on the premise that the majority of gas supplied to NSW from interstate will become unavailable as it is diverted to meet contractual supply agreements for LNG facilities to be exported to international markets. This argument is based on the assumption that there are no other options to secure domestic gas from existing producers. The federal government has demonstrated recently that there are other market-based mechanisms that can be implemented to ensure a cheap and reliable supply of gas for NSW users. The federal government recently claimed that their proposed export restrictions on gas could halve wholesale gas prices in Australia.
- Furthermore, Santos claim that the proposal will help support Australia's transition to a low carbon economy. Under section 3.2.2 of the EIS, Santos makes the claim that "the cost and scale of storage technologies has meant that the best way of ensuring security and consistency of supply is the utilisation of fast start gas fired generation which can kick in when the natural variations in wind and solar occur". The EIS is lacking in any scientific basis for this claim. In a recent study commissioned by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency titled `Energy Storage Study - A Storage Market Review and Recommendations for Funding and Knowledge Sharing Priorities' (AECOM, 2015) it was predicted that Australia will reach a tipping point within the next ten years where the cost of battery storage will become less than more traditional forms of grid-connected fast start generation. Surely the NSW and Federal governments would not be so short sighted as to support a technology and industry that is expected to be non-competitive within a decade?
- Lastly, and most importantly for decision makers, this is a project that does enjoy the support of the public. Recent polling (quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2016) suggests that 57% of Australians are opposed to coal and coal seam gas development. The coal seam gas development that has occurred throughout Queensland and NSW over the course of the last 10 years has created great rifts in what were once united and robust regional communities. The socio-economic gains from this project, it seems, are vastly outweighed by the losses.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
- The strategic need for the proposal is based on the premise that the majority of gas supplied to NSW from interstate will become unavailable as it is diverted to meet contractual supply agreements for LNG facilities to be exported to international markets. This argument is based on the assumption that there are no other options to secure domestic gas from existing producers. The federal government has demonstrated recently that there are other market-based mechanisms that can be implemented to ensure a cheap and reliable supply of gas for NSW users. The federal government recently claimed that their proposed export restrictions on gas could halve wholesale gas prices in Australia.
- Furthermore, Santos claim that the proposal will help support Australia's transition to a low carbon economy. Under section 3.2.2 of the EIS, Santos makes the claim that "the cost and scale of storage technologies has meant that the best way of ensuring security and consistency of supply is the utilisation of fast start gas fired generation which can kick in when the natural variations in wind and solar occur". The EIS is lacking in any scientific basis for this claim. In a recent study commissioned by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency titled `Energy Storage Study - A Storage Market Review and Recommendations for Funding and Knowledge Sharing Priorities' (AECOM, 2015) it was predicted that Australia will reach a tipping point within the next ten years where the cost of battery storage will become less than more traditional forms of grid-connected fast start generation. Surely the NSW and Federal governments would not be so short sighted as to support a technology and industry that is expected to be non-competitive within a decade?
- Lastly, and most importantly for decision makers, this is a project that does enjoy the support of the public. Recent polling (quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2016) suggests that 57% of Australians are opposed to coal and coal seam gas development. The coal seam gas development that has occurred throughout Queensland and NSW over the course of the last 10 years has created great rifts in what were once united and robust regional communities. The socio-economic gains from this project, it seems, are vastly outweighed by the losses.

CSG is harmful to health - the serious effects effects of CSG is now appearing in peer reviewed research in the US. This project will lead to large emissions of methane , adding to the problem of climate change. I am part time resident of the area and I love the area. I cannot believe the damage that will be done by clearing close to 1000 hectares of the Pilliga Forest. This is an area that is integral to the spiritual and cultural life of the Gamilaraay Aboriginal people, and this project shows no regard for their connection with the land.
It will have huge repercussions for the recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian basin which is vital to rural communities.

You could read all the facts below but the most important fact to read is that the Narrabri Gas Project is NOT WORTH THE RISK to the Great Artesian Basin ! The ground water is too important... a simple fact. The farmers know this... most people know this. And the farmers DON'T want this, the people of North West NSW don't want this, the people of New South Wales don't want this. The people of Australia don't want this...
SO SIMPLE... please listen to the people who know and care...
My very close friends are hardworking farmers smack bang right there in the Pilliga in the middle of this chaos and insanity... their livelihood is at risk just like all their hard working neighbours.. they are tired of this ridiculous fight... they want and need to get on with the job of producing food... food for all of us.... very basic.....SO SIMPLE....

The facts-
The lack of detail: Santos' EIS is very short on detail. It 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 a blank cheque 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.
There's no 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.
Groundwater and the Great Artesian Basin: 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.
Salt: 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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Climate change: recent research by the 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.

The proposed CSG field has a lifetime of over 20 years according to the description at the top of this online form. Let's say 30 or 40 years. In that time, the CSG field will pollute the environment directly through leaks that are inevitable. The wells will go on polluting for possibly hundreds or thousands of years later for the sake of 20 to 40 years of gas. Additionally, the gas will be burnt and the greenhouse gases released will be contrary to requirements of the Australian Government commitment to the IPCC to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
Australia has some of the best renewable energy resources of any country in the world. For the sake of our children and the planet, can we please choose these over fossil fuels, especially CSG. Australia should be a world leader in energy not a world destroyer.

More research needs to be done in this area to ensure it doesn't damage native flora and furna

I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed Narrabri Gas project.

There are oft stated, and very justified objections on environmental, social, indigenous heritage ,health grounds, not to mention the enormous damage that poisoning our farmlands would have on the local economy. This proposal ought be rejected on those grounds alone.

The economics simply do not stack in comparison to the enourmous costs.

In addition the EIS is of itself hopelessly inadequate and vague. No objective observer could possibly approve such a proposal based on the evidence currently before them.

There is also no evidence that Santos will use this gas to aid domestic supply. This has certainly not been their modus operandi elsewhere.

Please reject this outrageous and highly damaging proposal.

I object to this proposal for CSG wells in the Pillaga. The risk of damage to the Great Artesian Basin is unacceptable. We need to protect agricultural land, biodiversity and water.

I advocate for renewable resources