Narrabri Lateral Pipeline

I formally oppose the proposed Pilliga Lateral Pipeline. I live and work on Gomeroi Country and regularly spend time in the Pilliga, and acknowledge a strong personal connection to this special natural place. From what I can tell, the project poses unacceptable risks to one of Australia’s most significant inland forests and to the cultural, environmental and water systems that sustain it.

The Pilliga Forest is the largest remaining inland forest in eastern Australia and supports hundreds of native plant and animal species, including threatened and vulnerable fauna. Construction of a high-pressure gas pipeline would require extensive vegetation clearing, trenching and ongoing maintenance, fragmenting habitat and permanently damaging ecological corridors. These impacts cannot be adequately mitigated and would irreversibly alter the integrity of the forest and all that it contains.

The pipeline also presents serious risks to water resources. It would pass through waterways and areas connected to the recharge zone of the Great Artesian Basin, a water source of national significance that underpins ecosystems, agriculture and communities. The assessment to date appears to understates the likelihood and consequences of groundwater disturbance, contamination and altered hydrology. Approving infrastructure that enables gas extraction while excluding it from full water-trigger assessment is inconsistent with the precautionary principle.

The Pilliga is Gomeroi Country and is inseparable from Gomeroi cultural identity, law and responsibility. The forest and its waterways are living cultural landscapes with ongoing spiritual and social significance. Gomeroi Traditional Owners have repeatedly expressed opposition to Santos’ gas developments, including the lateral pipeline, and free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained. Proceeding with this project would further entrench the marginalisation of Indigenous decision-making and disrespect cultural obligations to care for Country. This is unacceptable!

Finally, the pipeline would lock in long-term fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when climate impacts are already being felt by regional and rural communities. Expanding gas infrastructure in the Pilliga contradicts climate commitments and diverts attention from renewable energy solutions that do not sacrifice irreplaceable landscapes or cultural heritage.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to refuse approval of the Pilliga Lateral Pipeline and to prioritise the protection of the Pilliga Forest, Gomeroi Country and the water systems that sustain them for future generations.
It's time to do the right thing!

I object to Santos’s proposed Narrabri Gas Project lateral pipeline. This is a damaging and polluting pipeline and will open the precious Pilliga for Santos’s 850-well Narrabri coal seam gasfield. The cumulative impact of this project applies to water loss and pollution, as well habitat loss and Gomeroi cultural heritage loss. Below I list my specific concerns about this proposal.

The pipeline will damage and disrupt water resources in the Pilliga:
• Santos plans to drill the pipeline under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks. This will have a huge and damaging impact on groundwater in this low-rainfall area.

The pipeline will have a detrimental impact on Gomeroi cultural heritage:
• The Pilliga has deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal acknowledged that all water resources, and Bohena Creek in particular, are of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. The Tribunal said there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500 metres of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi consent. However, Santos plans to drill the pipeline right under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks, disturbing the alluvial groundwater. The Environmental Impact Statement does not address the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Creek for Gomeroi people.
• Construction of the pipeline will also wipe out two known sites of significance to the Gomeroi people and will damage a further four sites. Gomeroi people have said the Pilliga’s integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole.

Damaging impact on farmland and native forest:
• The pipeline crosses 12 farms, and a little under half the land it will disturb is agricultural land. One fifth of the agricultural land to be disturbed is cropping land. The other half of the pipeline cuts through the Pilliga Forest.
• Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30-metre-wide swathe through the Pilliga East Forest, seriously damaging habitat for small mammals, including microbats.
• Clearance work for the pipeline will destroy habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga; such as the Pilliga mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s long-eared bat.

Other issues:
• Santos’s Environmental Impact Statement for the pipeline makes claims for the economic benefits of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but doesn’t take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.
• The Environmental Impact Statement should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

I trust that the issues noted above will be carefully considered, and that Santos’s proposed Narrabri Gas Project lateral pipeline will be denied.

I want to express my strong opposition and distress at the proposed Narrabri lateral pipeline. I have been to the Pilliga and seen how totally inappropriate this whole project is. It is the largest remnant semi-arid woodland in NSW and I saw the State forest. I am a NSW resident of 43 years, an ongoing taxpayer and have a degree in Environmental Management from Macquarie University, I live as carefully as I can in terms of energy, I have solar panels, drive an EV and consume and waste as little as possible.
We need investment in our future not our destruction. Climate change is costing us dearly in terms of floods, fires and hot days. We need to build canopy, conserve our farmland and support the entire ecosystem. This requires our government to be leaders, to make decisions which show foresight and protect our world for todays children and tomorrows. We yearn for leaders not politicians bullied by big business and loud voices calling out me me me! We need government to lead and to bring the population along by explaining the real cost of these huge destructive infrastructure developments.

It is not possible to lay 55 kilometres of pipeline without significant detriment to farmland, canopy cover, habitat and our most valuable of resources- water. We must see the real cost , look at previous pipelines and know the consequences. I have seen what the first experimental gas well sunk in the Pilliga, the "remediated' site where vegetation still refuses to grow,. Where the the flare stack inevitably threatens a dry forest, valuable habitat. This development will be a huge stain on any government that approves it. It will become an example of the governments poor decision making, of being weak and unable to make the difficult decisions for the good of our future.

I understand the pressure of big business, the publics cry for more gas, for cheaper electricity. We can require the gas companies to ensure the people of Australia get sufficient gas - it is our countries resources not big businesses resources. Sustainable energy is providing cheaper electricity and we can do more we can learn to conserve. We can learn the consequences. We can give the full picture to the public and trust they will understand and appreciate leadership.

Please, please make the difficult, but right, decision to say no to the Narrabri lateral pipeline. Allianz, the largest insurance company in the world refuses to insure property with gas infrastructure - surely this tells the story without bias or emotion. My plea is to trust that if we care for the environment we will be the ultimate winners in harmony with nature.
Yours most sincerely Harriet Jane McNeillage

Narrabri Lateral Pipeline
SSI-53307723

December 17 2025
Firstly my submission regarding the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline which is proposed to carry gas in high pressure gas pipelines from the Narrabri Gas Project in the Pilliga forest will threaten a lot of what I love about north west NSW. The Pilliga is a subtley beautiful and precious ecosystem with great cultural value to First Nations people and thereby to the rest of the community with whom they share those values whereever appropriate.

The Pilliga as a whole, having this deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people has been acknowledged by The National Native Title Tribunal which identified that all water resources, and Bohena Creek in particular, is of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. The Tribunal said there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500m of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi consent.

The fact that the developer, Santos plans to drill the pipeline right under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks, disturbing the alluvial groundwater and that the EIS does not discuss the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Creek for Gomeroi people at all is not acceptable.
Construction of the pipeline will also wipe out two known sites of significance and damage a further four sites. Gomeroi people have said the Pilliga’s integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole.

The gas pipeline will be built right across the Pilliga and directly under Bohena Creek - a creek which the National Native Title Tribunal has recognised is very significant to Gomeroi people.
The Tribunal said that there should be no surface or ground disturbance within 500m of Bohena Ck, but this pipeline will cut right through it. This is starting to sound very much like cultural vandalism which we have seen by other companies in other states.

It is time that Australia raise the bar on its respect and valuation of cultural sites.
It's also of great concern that the pipeline crosses 12 farms, and a little under half the land it will disturb is agricultural land, one fifth of the land to be disturbed is cropping land.
It has become abundantly clear that many farmers are deeply troubled and oppose the pipeline going through their properties.
The other half of the pipeline cuts through the Pilliga forest. So there the added environmental impacts caused by destruction of habitats. Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest, causing serious damage for microbats and small mammals. It will clear habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, like the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.

While the Santos’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the pipeline claims the economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, it doesn’t take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.
­
In conclusion as a nationally and globally responsible environmental statement in these times of rapidly increasing climate crises the EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

17th December 2025
Submission Objecting to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to object to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. Our family have lived and
worked on the land for 102 years on the Liverpool Plains and have been stunned to think a
government could put a private company’s interest before our nation’s food and water security. The
federal government admits that gas exports are causing our gas shortages resulting in our energy
prices to sky rocket and the only way to reduce gas prices and shortages is to limit gas exports. This
contradicts supporting a project that will harm our Great Artesian Basin and Aquifer’s, create
subsidence on our productive farmland and be the 6th biggest source of greenhouse pollution in New
South Wales (NSW).
The Narrabri Gas is high in cardon dioxide, therefore making it very expensive to make it into pipeline
quality. Santos are not interested in the Narrabri Gas; they have their sights set on the Petroleum
Exploration License's (Pel’s) from Moree to Willow Tree and that is where they will potentially extract
more gas than NSW has been promised resulting in surplus gas to export to fill their shortages with
current contracts. Currently Santos buys from the domestic market to meet export contracts as they
cannot meet their export commitments with their own production. This is the key driver of high gas
prices and highlights that the Narrabri Gas Project and future gas project’s main purpose is to meet
Santos’ contract commitments. It has been suggested a 25% tax on these exports would encourage
more gas for domestic supply and raise $17 billion for our nations people. However, Santos and all
the other gas companies in the 2022 -23 financial year paid no corporate tax.
Agricultural land must be protected for long term food and fibre production. Agriculture significantly
boosts the economy by providing food, creating vast employment across the food chain. It drives
export and trade, ensures food security, fosters rural development, and supporting related
industries, acting as a fundamental pillar for national income (GDP). Our water is a necessity just to
exist. The Queensland communities within gasfields are already experiencing damage to the
underground water supplies, it is irreparable. An October 2025 report from the Queensland Office of
Ground water Impact Assessment showed as many as 650 bores would be impacted in the gasfields,
with 76 more in three years. A CSIRO study looking at the Queensland CSG industry found that the
losses to farmers due to CSG mining on their land amounted to an average loss of $2.17 Million over
20 years.
It seems unbelievable that such a project like the Narrabri Gas Project was approved at all, with
nearly 98% of the 23,000 submissions objecting to its approval. Santos cannot meet its current
export commitments as they have over estimated production, therefore buying from other big gas
exporters Origin and Shell. This is the root cause of Australia’s shortage of Gas, and I strongly object
putting our worldwide recognised clean food and fibre production at risk for Santos’ mismanagement
and greed.

I am extremely concerned about environmental damage to this unique and fragile area. I am concerned about the potential damage to and loss of the Eucalypt forests and native fauna, but , I believe, more importantly, that there is a good chance that there will be contamination of the Great Artesian Basin. Santos has had previous cases of dams breaking and serious environmental damage occurring. I have witnessed the clean up after one of these incidents and I don't believe that it has been carried out to anywhere close to the standard required.
We can't afford to risk this unique area as well as one of the largest groundwater sources in the world.

This submission to the Narrabri Lateral EIS is yet again another submission written in deep opposition to a related Santos project here in NSW - and I and my family object to the Narrabri Lateral EIS on exhibition for various reasons.
One of my family’s farms at Quirindi is directly impacted by the proposed Hunter Gas high-pressure gas pipeline that is suggested to cross our property for 1.6 klm on its journey south to Newcastle. The HGP project was first scoped and proposed in the mid to late 2000’s and an approved 200 metre wide “study corridor” was given a 10-year approval in 2009.
No consent has ever been sought at the time of the project from our family – similar to many others community members – who now have many questions outstanding that have not been answered by the current proponent – nor by the last proponent - as to the direct impacts of the project on our land, impacts to our businesses and for many of us - homes.
It’s very obvious Santos has little interest in genuinely proceeding with the project with the level and knowledge of staffing on the ground and sustained lack of understanding and response to genuine questions as to the direct impact of the proposed project. Santos and their representatives clearly don’t know the answers - or won’t answer the questions as they know an honest answer won’t help proceed the project on said lands.
Regarding our farm and much of the entire route of the Hunter Gas pipeline corridor - no environmental studies ever occurred 2 decades ago - and much of the study in preparation of the 2009 EA (then termed Environmental Assessment) was by desktop analysis prior to the study corridor being approved. Only now after 200-metre-wide study corridor has been in place for nearly 17 years are Santos attempting to complete environmental studies on private land to progress the project towards a final investment decision.
We will never allow Santos to proceed studies on our farm without complete independent baseline studies – by a provider of our choice, paid for by Santos with our privileged information provided direct to us the land owners – and not just in the 200m wide corridor but the entire 600 acres of the 3 lots/DP impacted by the (ATS) Authority to Survey application – that Santos has had over our farms, our assets and lives for now nearly 3 years.
We know from our stewardship and ownership of the land for now nearly 50 years that such a piece of infrastructure and the usual devastating installation methods will bring irreversible destruction to our farm and render it in many regards completely devoid of its primary natural resources that will be devastating to the property’s entire future use – not just the 30m wide suggested easement but the entire 600 acres impacted across the 3 lots that the pipeline route entails, but the additional 1100 acre larger farm attached at the rear of the front impacted 600 acres. That 1100 acres is land locked behind - and will additionally be impaired by the pipeline on the front of the access to the now combined farms.
The Hunter Gas pipeline project was effectively abandoned for over a decade and lost from many landholders both old and news’s knowledge - and it only reared its very ugly head again in November 2019 as the project announced was extended for another 5 years - and that’s when it was rediscovered or even discovered for the first time by many directly impacted landholders who didn’t know of the proposed project on their land.
There are no easements in place for the Hunter Gas pipeline, so as far as our family is concerned Santos has no rights or interest in our farm, nor right to our private commercial business operational information to further this significant flawed process that inadvertently selected us as a route of choice for this – Santos now 3rd attempt to get a pipeline corridor in place to export gas from the Narrabri Gas project to the NSW network.
This Narrabri Lateral EIS is significantly flawed and doesn’t even meet some aspects of the SEARS requirements. Other groups submissions will show the omissions and gaps, and I thank them for putting in the hard work to read, review and note the areas that have not been covered by the EIS.
Our family and the community will continue to fight Santo’s suite of interconnected Gas projects in NSW as their inevitable scope turns to expansion of the Narrabri Gas project across the Liverpool Plains - as is flagged by the NSW Future of Gas statement.
Santos have said in local community consultation their aim is to exploit as much of the gas under the Liverpool Plains as possible. We are not going to make a proverbial “rod for own back” and allow the pipeline to proceed with these significant admissions from the proponent – that in many years prior they claimed they wouldn’t touch the Liverpool Plains. There isn’t much trust from the community in what this proponent says.
We look forward to Santos attempting to and then potentially invoking the ATS (Authority to Survey) over our farms as Santos extremely slowly inches this project and their “studies” forward so we can “have it out” – not just via these time wasting submissions - but at our farm gates, where we will continue to deny Santos access in all ways possible – but this time we can do it face to face to some fledgling Santos delegate. They can bring Kevin Gallagher to our gate; he’ll get an even harsher welcome than the down-and-outer type staff he recruits to harass private landholders who are just trying to work their private businesses for their own family prosperity and interests.
I have personally now spent thousands of hours of my personal time - over nearly a decade - in opposition to the risks associated that Santo’s activity invokes – that is, and will be simply delegated to Santos to manage, and often adaptively manage on the spot.
I was working with the community in opposition to the Santos Narrabri Gas project and listening to the Coonamble community who were deeply opposed to the then proposed Western Slopes APA high pressure gas pipeline – and only out there at Coonamble in Winter 2019 I was shown the Hunter Gas pipeline map and that is how I discovered that my own family farm was impacted by the Hunter Gas pipeline – that old map and conversation with Georgina Woods from Lock the Gate was how I was informed of the 2009 approved 200 metre wide study corridor across my family farm.
At that approx. July 2019 point in time the HGP project extension “modification” application submission process had closed, but no extension had yet been given at that time.
We were not informed by the then proponent of any process entailing our land was in action; we were not kept up to date of the project flagged for our land over the prior decade; we were not invited as directly impacted landholders to comment on the 2019 extension process; but I was informed of this allegedly State Signification project on our farm - from a third party person.
There are many friends and colleagues who have spent a lot longer and more time fighting Santos and we thank them for their ongoing work in exposing Santo’s deceit and folly.
Our local and the broader community are extremely sick and tired of this ongoing and unnecessary project and look forward to Kevin Gallagher and the fellow directors in Adelaide eventually ending this farce of a project so we can stop wasting our time and money in defence of our community, nationally important water resources and phenomenal agriculture opportunities that are afforded to us across the Liverpool Plains. You can’t eat coal and you can’t drink gas.
Please note my submission as an objection.
Peter Wills, “Windemere” Quirindi, 2343

Firstly, we note that the necessary land surveys are known to not have been completed and therefore strongly object to this project progressing, until the appropriate and necessary work has been completed. This is a clear representation of Santos jumping the gun without doing the necessary due diligence. Furthermore, the construction of this lateral pipeline is null and void without the construction of the Hunter gas pipeline. Which has received minimal support due the significant number of affected landholders on prime agricultural land along the route. It is nearly unnecessary to further write on why landholders are opposed when Santos have used ambiguous language with no context in the Agricultural land Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which expresses “Most normal agricultural land use can be re-established over the permanent easement following completion of constriction”. It is in our view inappropriate to use this ambiguous language as “most” is only subject to Santos view and this EIS should be readapted to rectify any confusion about what activities are considered in the above statement.
In regards to the disruption of this productive agricultural land Santos expressed in their EIS that during construction land use within the disturbance footprint would change from productive land of any class to a “temporary construction site with land used for activities including work areas, stockpiling and construction facilities”. Landholders would be unable to access their own land during this time. Furthermore, Santos admits in the EIS that this construction would temporarily reduce agricultural yields for farm operators. For those feeling the pinch of the cost of living it would seem rash to reduce any agricultural yield that provides food or fibre to the people of Australia.
Santos express that temporary use of land during construction would only be available via a lease, license, agreement or a memorandum of understanding with the private landholder. The premise of having to lease your own land back from Santos during the construction process is unfathomable. This process will not change the amount that landholders are required to pay for their rates or by any measure compensate for the loss of production of this land. Further there is no mention of timing of construction being increased due to climatic conditions and the supplementary impacts this would have on landholders.
Landholders are required to have permanent easements linked to their properties if they are forced to submit to the construction of this pipeline. Arguably decreasing the value of these properties. Santos have clearly given little thought to those landholders affected arguing that the land affected only represents 0.01 per cent of the gross value of agricultural production within the Narrabri LGA and this is in their language “negligible”. No individual economic impacts have been considered; this creates inequity for those being forced to negotiate or defend their property rights in this instance.

Finally, Santos only consider compensation for direct economic impacts, while mentioning there may be indirect impacts such as dust impacts on crops and pastures, noise and light affecting grazing patterns or seasonal impacts such as interruptions to activities such as harvest and spraying. These activities are all key to maintaining and operating successful farming enterprises and the lack of consideration given to their significance is appauling again representing the need to take this project into further consideration.
Furthermore, trucks and vehicles accessing the construction areas, will increase soil compaction and damage to vegetation as well as pose a significant Biosecurity risk. These factors pose both a significant risk to crop production and grazing patterns. Compaction itself causes decreased yield of both crop and pastures. The risk of new weeds being introduced and establishing due to the inability to potentially spray or carry out other activities. These factors have not been considered or consulted on. Therefore we strongly reject any movement forward on this project.
These above impacts and all have the ability to impact not only business production but further have the ability as a whole to impact our countries food security. Society have faced many challenges in the recent years since covid, including pressure on our food security. This reduction of our land both in quantity and quality would see a decrease in our ability to produce food and therefore contribute to a further decrease in our country and states food security. In line with a decrease in food security, we have also seen a major increase in the cost of living, in particularly the cost associated with food, if we continue to remove prime farming land no matter how insignificant Santos considers it, these pressure will only increase.
We would strongly urge you to consider these factors alone when considering an approval for this pipeline.

Firstly, we note that the necessary land surveys are known to not have been completed and therefore strongly object to this project progressing, until the appropriate and necessary work has been completed. This is a clear representation of Santos jumping the gun without doing the necessary due diligence. Furthermore, the construction of this lateral pipeline is null and void without the construction of the Hunter gas pipeline. Which has received minimal support due the significant number of affected landholders on prime agricultural land along the route. It is nearly unnecessary to further write on why landholders are opposed when Santos have used ambiguous language with no context in the Agricultural land Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which expresses “Most normal agricultural land use can be re-established over the permanent easement following completion of constriction”. It is in our view inappropriate to use this ambiguous language as “most” is only subject to Santos view and this EIS should be readapted to rectify any confusion about what activities are considered in the above statement.
In regards to the disruption of this productive agricultural land Santos expressed in their EIS that during construction land use within the disturbance footprint would change from productive land of any class to a “temporary construction site with land used for activities including work areas, stockpiling and construction facilities”. Landholders would be unable to access their own land during this time. Furthermore, Santos admits in the EIS that this construction would temporarily reduce agricultural yields for farm operators. For those feeling the pinch of the cost of living it would seem rash to reduce any agricultural yield that provides food or fibre to the people of Australia.
Santos express that temporary use of land during construction would only be available via a lease, license, agreement or a memorandum of understanding with the private landholder. The premise of having to lease your own land back from Santos during the construction process is unfathomable. This process will not change the amount that landholders are required to pay for their rates or by any measure compensate for the loss of production of this land. Further there is no mention of timing of construction being increased due to climatic conditions and the supplementary impacts this would have on landholders.
Landholders are required to have permanent easements linked to their properties if they are forced to submit to the construction of this pipeline. Arguably decreasing the value of these properties. Santos have clearly given little thought to those landholders affected arguing that the land affected only represents 0.01 per cent of the gross value of agricultural production within the Narrabri LGA and this is in their language “negligible”. No individual economic impacts have been considered; this creates inequity for those being forced to negotiate or defend their property rights in this instance.

Finally, Santos only consider compensation for direct economic impacts, while mentioning there may be indirect impacts such as dust impacts on crops and pastures, noise and light affecting grazing patterns or seasonal impacts such as interruptions to activities such as harvest and spraying. These activities are all key to maintaining and operating successful farming enterprises and the lack of consideration given to their significance is appauling again representing the need to take this project into further consideration.
Furthermore, trucks and vehicles accessing the construction areas, will increase soil compaction and damage to vegetation as well as pose a significant Biosecurity risk. These factors pose both a significant risk to crop production and grazing patterns. Compaction itself causes decreased yield of both crop and pastures. The risk of new weeds being introduced and establishing due to the inability to potentially spray or carry out other activities. These factors have not been considered or consulted on. Therefore we strongly reject any movement forward on this project.
These above impacts and all have the ability to impact not only business production but further have the ability as a whole to impact our countries food security. Society have faced many challenges in the recent years since covid, including pressure on our food security. This reduction of our land both in quantity and quality would see a decrease in our ability to produce food and therefore contribute to a further decrease in our country and states food security. In line with a decrease in food security, we have also seen a major increase in the cost of living, in particularly the cost associated with food, if we continue to remove prime farming land no matter how insignificant Santos considers it, these pressure will only increase.
We would strongly urge you to consider these factors alone when considering an approval for this pipeline.

There's a wide range of issues that this project would adversely impact:

- The pipeline will disturb is agricultural land and the other the Pilliga forest.
- Construction through the Pilliga will impact microbats and small mammals. Eg, the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared bat.
- The Santos EIS claims economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but doesn’t take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield. The EIS must be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

• The pipeline crosses 12 farms, and a little under half the land it will disturb is agricultural land, one fifth of the land to be disturbed is cropping land which could damage our local market and export of Australian grown grain and cotton industries.
• Narrabri region is the headquarters for two major agricultural research stations, the Australian Cotton Research Institute and the IA Watson Grains Research Centre. Major impacts to the surrounding environment, such as the effects to water quality during the construction of the pipeline, is an highly uncontrollable variable that could waste millions of dollars in research projects and slow agricultural innovation and development at the taxpayers expense.
• The other half of the pipeline cuts through the Pilliga forest. Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest, causing serious damage for microbats and small mammals as well as divide koala habitat which leads to knock on affects in gene pools and breeding conditions.
• It will clear habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, like the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben's Long-eared Bat.
• Santos' Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the pipeline claims the economic
"benefits" of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but doesn't take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.
• The EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.
• The Pilliga as a whole has deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal acknowledged that all water resources, and Bohena Ck in particular, is of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. The Tribunal said there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500m of Bohena Ck without Gomeroi consent.
• However, Santos plans to drill the pipeline right under Bohena Ck and across six other major creeks, disturbing the alluvial groundwater. The ElS does not discuss the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Ck for Gomeroi people at all.
• Construction of the pipeline will also wipe out two known sites of significance and damage a further four sites. Gomeroi people have said the Pilliga's integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole.

The proposed massive Narrabri Gas Project in the Pilliga forest and its associated high pressure gas pipelines will impact threatened species such as the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.
It will also impact Bohena Ck which is of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people.
It will cut into agricultural land, and will clear 168 hectares of forest & cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East Forest.
The EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gas field and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

To whom it may concern,
I write to strongly oppose the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline and the associated Narrabri Gas Project promoted by Santos. I am frustrated and alarmed that a project of this scale - one that will carve about 50–60 kilometres through Pilliga and Bibblewindi forests and surrounding agricultural land - is being considered when so many fundamental social, cultural and environmental harms remain unresolved. The project should not proceed unless and until these harms are addressed and, in my view, that means it should never proceed.

My reasons are listed below.

The project disrespects and harms Gomeroi Traditional Owners
The Gomeroi people have repeatedly expressed opposition to Santos’ project and have pursued legal action because they were not properly heard or accommodated. The Gomeroi vote against Santos’ agreement, and later court decisions and native title appeals demonstrate that Indigenous consent and proper cultural heritage protections have not been meaningfully secured. This is not a procedural inconvenience — it is a real affront to the rights, cultural heritage and wellbeing of the Gomeroi people and their Country.

The pipeline and project will damage native forests, habitat and threatened species
The project (including the proposed 50–60 km Narrabri Lateral Pipeline) passes through Bibblewindi and parts of the Pilliga State Forest and associated landscapes. Federal assessments and project referrals note the Narrabri Project could have significant impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities — including species identified in the EPBC referral and assessments. Clearing for a high-pressure steel pipeline (roughly 50–60 km in length) and associated infrastructure risks habitat loss, fragmentation and long-term ecological decline in an already stressed landscape. These environmental risks have not been adequately answered.

Significant cumulative environmental and climate harms have been downplayed
Coal-seam methane developments and long transmission/pipeline corridors have cumulative impacts - on groundwater, biodiversity, fire regimes and greenhouse gas emissions. Independent assessments, environmental advocates and scientists have repeatedly warned that projects of this kind pose unacceptable cumulative risks. The climate impacts of producing large volumes of methane now will lock in decades of greenhouse gas emissions that are inconsistent with Australia’s emissions goals. The decision-making process must account for cumulative and climate harms - currently it has not done so in a way that protects the public interest.

Local farmers and the regional community strongly oppose the project
It is not only Indigenous groups and environmentalists who oppose the project. Farming organisations and local landholders have raised serious concerns about land access, agricultural impacts, property values, water security and the pipeline corridor. Recently, NSW Farmers has publicly signalled active legal engagement and opposition to the Narrabri project, which underlines the depth of community concern. Projects that proceed in the face of strong local opposition cannot claim to be socially responsible.

The pipeline would clear native vegetation for industrial infrastructure
Santos’ own materials and the public referrals make clear the lateral pipeline is an approximately 50–60 km, high-pressure steel pipeline with associated clearing and surface infrastructure. The EIS/executive summaries submitted for the pipeline estimate native vegetation clearing and disturbance across significant areas of the Pilliga and Bibblewindi landscapes. This is not a minor “connection” project, it is a long corridor of industrialisation.

The economic/tax and export picture is deeply concerning and under-examined
Santos has in places claimed the Narrabri gas would supply the east coast domestic market and the company has signed domestic supply memoranda. But independent economic analyses and scrutiny of the gas industry more broadly show that domestic availability is not guaranteed, no transparency measures are in place and large gas companies such as Santos have repeatedly been scrutinised for paying very little tax on profits in Australia. Communities should not continue to shoulder the environmental and cultural cost while multinational profits are shuffled offshore.

WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN
Given the scale of cultural harm, environmental destruction, community opposition, climate risk, and the lack of demonstrated public benefit, the Narrabri Gas Project and the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline must not proceed under any circumstances.

There is no version of this project - modified, mitigated, or “offset” - that adequately protects Gomeroi rights, safeguards the environment or serves the long-term interests of NSW communities. It is a project built on the dismissal of Traditional Owners, the degradation of nationally significant ecosystems and economic assumptions that overwhelmingly benefit a multinational corporation rather than the Australian public.

Therefore, what must happen is simple:
- The project should be rejected outright by all relevant state and federal decision-makers.
- No clearing, construction or preparatory works for the pipeline or any associated infrastructure should be permitted now or in the future.
- The rights and decisions of the Gomeroi people must be upheld, including their explicit opposition to this project. Their refusal should be decisive.
- The Pilliga and Bibblewindi forests should be protected, not industrialised, including a halt to all fossil-fuel-related encroachment in these culturally and environmentally significant landscapes.
- Government attention should shift to genuine, sustainable economic alternatives for regional NSW, rather than doubling down on outdated, high-emissions projects that undermine Australia’s climate commitments and damage community trust.

The community has been clear. The science has been clear. The Traditional Owners have been clear.
This project is not in the public interest and should be stopped.

I object to this project because it is unnecessary, unwanted and harmful to people and the environment. The proponent has a very poor environmental record in this area and appears not to know the importance of the Great Artesian Basin. The project is economically unviable and would become a stranded asset.
I am a citizen of North West New South Wales.
My objections are outlined below.

UNWANTED and HARMFUL PROJECT
1 ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WATER
The Narrabri Lateral Pipeline Project site intersects 45 watercourses as stated in 8.2.2. EIS. Part of the site sits on top of one of the very few recharge areas of the Great Artesian Basin, GAB. The GAB underlies 22% of Australia's landmass and in this area of Northern New South Wales the GAB's waters are essential for town water supplies eg Moree and, Gilgandra Its' water is also essential for stock use and agricultural production. Recharge areas of necessity must be pollution free.
The proponent, Santos, has a very poor environmental record in this area. There have been many spills and leaks of toxic CSG water since Santos took over the project from Eastern Star Gas and Santos has not been able to rehabilitate a site which was contaminated in mis 2011 by a leak from the Bibblewindi facility which was not reported when it happened . I have seen part of the area affected and there are no plants growing there , the area is sterile .Santos was fined many times in 2014 in the Land and Environment Court for multiple breaches of the conditions of its petroleum Title. Additionally in 2014 Santos was the first company to be proven guilty for contaminating an aquifer at the Bibblewindi water storage site. A number of heavy metals were found including uranium at 20 times higher than safe drinking water guidelines. The EPA had to investigate the adequacy of Santos ' erosion controls at the Leewood site because of a run-off incident.Santos has been sent warning letters for storing environmentally damaging materials at the Narrabri Operations Centre. Sources Lock the Gate and NSW Government https//www. planningportal.nsw.gov.au Narrabri Gas-Deprtment of Planning and Environment 30 Sept 2020 The Narrabri Gas Project has a long history of spills and leaks of toxic CSG water.
The Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is an essential part of the Narrabri Gas Project. The Narrabri Gas Project would produce 430,000 tonnes of toxic salt water which would be dumped into land fill ie Santos has no plans to modify the extraction process or to decontaminate the toxic salt water.
Santos has also expressed an interest in using the great Artesian Basin in this area as a carbon capture and storage project .Source FOI Lock the Gate .This is preposterous because of the threat to water quality by the acidification of ground water as carbon dioxide dissolves and the movement of toxic inorganic elements into groundwater resources. It would be reprehensible to undergo this experimental unproven procedure in the Pilliga because it is one of the very few recharge areas of the Great Artesian Basin. This procedure would risk the integrity of the GAB .
All of the 45 waterways which the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline intersects are ephemeral , however when there is a large enough flow the watercourses flow into the Namoi River so any toxins reaching the Namoi would contaminate that very important North Western River.
The proponent does not appear to place sufficient importance to ephemeral water sources as most conclusions in the EIS chapter 8 Water end in "minimal potential impacts for water". The project area is in an arid area where ephemeral water is crucial for supplying water for farms, replenishing groundwater and supporting unique ecosystems.
2. ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE GOMEROI PEOPLE
The Gomeroi people do not want this project because The Great Artesian Basin is of immense importance to them. The Gomeroi have not misused this vital asset for thousands of years. They have not polluted , overused or wasted its' waters and wish it to remain unpolluted .
More than half of this project is located in the Pilliga, EIS Figure 1.1 The Pilliga is of great spiritual,social and cultural significance tothe Gomeroi people.The National Native Title Tribunal has recognised that all water resources in the Pilliga are of major cultural importance to the Gomeroi people. Bohena Creek is stated to be of major cultural importance.
The National Native Title Tribunal stated that there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500m of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi concent. However Santos plans to use horizontal directional drilling under Bohena Creek, EIS 8.3.2. .EIS 8.3.2 also states "..The proposed construction methods ....would be undertaken in such a way to prevent the exchange of liquids between the borehole and the surrounding geological formations.Based on the short duration of these crossings and the methods proposed , no impacts on groundwater resources at these locations are expected". Given Santos' dreadful record of spills and leaks and the general nature of this statement the future function of the Bohena ,and other streams referred to in this section cannot be assured. Nowhere in the entire EIS is the cultural significance of the Bohena Creek to the Gomeroi discussed. This is reprehensible .
Section 12.2.1 Aboriginal heritage. Significance of Identified sites states in part that ""all sites have been provisionally assessed as having high cultural significiance" and all sites were identified as having no historic values as they are not associated with historically important persons , places or events. As well as being of great cultural significance to the Gomeroi people these sites are also of historic value. Who is the judge of important persons? Gomeroi people are entitled to their historic knowledge. The EIS states that the proponent would find it difficult to avoid direct impacts on six Aboriginal sites , that 2 sites will be destroyed and 4 sites will be partially destroyed. This is unacceptable to the Gomeroi people as they have said that the sites must be kept in situ as the Pilliga's integrity is central to their cultural practice and well being. Half of the pipeline is located in the Pilliga Forrest. A prominent Gomeroi elder has spoken to newspapers and television stations about these matters and a large gathering of Gomeroi people to discuss this project further was held in Tamworth on weeken of 6th-7th Dec 2025.
3.ADVERSE IMPACTS ON FARMERS.
Farmers do not want this project because of the impact of the project on water, land and their ability to farm. Santos has failed to adequately communicate with the farming community and there is little trust with the proponent because of its environmentally poor record with damaging leaks and spills. The pipeline crosses 12 farms and will disturb cropping and grazing land. Farmers are worried about the integrity of the GAB , damage which may be done to the ephemeral water sources and the increased possibility of bush fires being exacerbated or started by fugitive gas emissions. Most of the project is situated in bush fire prone land Fig 16.1 Bushfire prone land. The people called on to fight these fires will be the affected farmers.
Additionally farmers realise that the approved Narrabri Gas Project with 850 gas wells is uneconomic and will need extra gas wells in the Liverpool plains for a gas project to be viable for Santos. Farmers who have existing PELs on their land feel that they have an uncertain future. Farmers do not want to risk their livelihoods for this Lateral Pipeline when only one-third of landholders along the connecting pipeline from the Narrabri Gas fields to Newcastle have agreements with Santos. Farmers do not want to host a pipeline which may damage their water sources and soil . They also do not wish to have a pipeline carrying CSG which will further exacerbate Climate Change which will make grazing and cropping less viable with increasingly uncertain climate conditions bringing more severe disasters such as floods and bush fires.
4 THE PROJECT IS UNNECESSARY
There is no need for new gas supplies or new gas projects.Australia has plenty of gas. It is the mismanagement of the gas market which makes it appear otherwise. Australia only uses 20% of the gas it produces. The 80% of the gas Australia exports is sold to overseas customers at prices lower than domestic consumers are forced to pay.For example Australia in 2024 sold 627-812 petajoules of gas to Japan, about double the amount used in the Australian East Coast Market in a year. Japanese companies have profited by buying this cheap contract priced gas and reselling the excess gas at higher prices. In 2024 these companies made a profit of US $14 billion .Source Ed Husic MP Parliament 23.11.25 ,SMH ,Guardian and SMH articles.
Australia is increasingly producing more renewable energy and is using more Battery storage. There are more community solar and storage systems coming online as well as commercial renewable projects. There is momentum for the total electrification of homes and businesses eg heat pumps and induction stoves are more energy efficient , cheaper and more healthy than gas appliances in the home . Gas is being phased out in businesses and industries because of the expense. Sources IEEFA, Climate Council, Economists Richard Denniss and Nicole Huntley. Saul Griffith,
5 ADVERSE IMPACTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
This pipeline is one of the integral parts of the Narrabri Gas Project. The entire Narrabri Gas Project will be the 6th highest GHG emitter in NSW. If humanity wishes to exist on a liveable planet no further gas projects should be approved.

Please reject this unnecessary harmful project.
17.12.25

Submission on the Narrabri Gas Pipeline Project

I write to object to the proposed Narrabri Gas Pipeline project on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Respect Gomeroi Cultural Heritage and Legal Requirements
The National Native Title Tribunal explicitly stated that there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500 metres of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi consent. Despite this clear directive, Santos plans to drill the pipeline directly under Bohena Creek, and this consent has not been obtained.
Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails entirely to discuss the cultural significance of Bohena Creek for Gomeroi people. The Tribunal acknowledged that all water resources, and Bohena Creek in particular, hold major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. This omission in the EIS represents a serious failure to properly assess cultural heritage impacts and demonstrates a disregard for both Indigenous rights and the Tribunal's findings.

2. Destruction of Pilliga Forest and Threatened Species Habitat
Approximately half of the proposed pipeline cuts through the Pilliga forest, which will result in the clearing of 168 hectares of forest habitat. A 30-metre-wide corridor through Pilliga East forest will cause serious damage to critical habitat for microbats and small mammals.
The pipeline threatens several species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, including the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern Pygmy Possum, and Corben's Long-eared Bat. The clearing of this habitat puts these threatened species at significant risk and represents an unacceptable environmental cost.

3. Inadequate Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Impact
The EIS claims economic benefits from the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline but fails to take responsibility for assessing the harm to climate from the broader project. The EIS must be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from both the gasfield and the two associated pipelines.

This is particularly significant given that the Narrabri gasfield is predicted to become the sixth largest source of greenhouse pollution in New South Wales. The failure to properly account for these climate impacts in the economic assessment renders the EIS incomplete and misleading.

For these reasons, I urge the rejection of this pipeline proposal as currently presented. At minimum, the EIS must be substantially revised to address these critical deficiencies.

This Santos Pilliga project should not be approved. It has absolutely no benefit to all residents in and around the area to be Fracked and an unnecessary pipeline line through productive farm land. No NSW residents will benefit from this project. Santos will send our gas offshore and the people of NSW will have to pay for our own gas. Santos has a poor reputation for preserving our aquifers, our forests our Native Lands and paying royalties and taxes. Please our farmers have to fight for survival with climate change affecting their crops and unseasonably hot summers as well as floods. Why do we need more C02 emissions to make farming even harder.

I wish to register my strongest objection to this proposed project.

This pipeline, carrying pressurised gas for 55 km from the proposed drilling wells in the Pilliga State Forest, to the proposed Hunter Gas Pipeline near Baan Baa, would be devastating to the traditional owners, the Gomeroi people, the environment, and communities, local, downstream and globally.

I will granulate my objections via the following points.

1) Impacts on Gomeroi Cultural heritage:
• The Pilliga as a whole, has deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal acknowledged that all water resources, and Bohena Ck in particular, is of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. The Tribunal said there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500m of Bohena Ck without Gomeroi consent.
• However, Santos plans to drill the pipeline right under Bohena Ck and across six other major creeks, disturbing the alluvial groundwater. The EIS does not discuss the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Ck for Gomeroi people at all.
• Construction of the pipeline will also wipe out two known sites of significance and damage a further four sites. Gomeroi people have said the Pilliga’s integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole.
2) Impacts on farmland and forest
• The pipeline crosses 12 farms, and a little under half the land it will disturb is agricultural land, one fifth of the land to be disturbed is cropping land. The other half of the pipeline cuts through the Pilliga Forest.
• Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30-metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East Forest, causing serious damage for microbats and small mammals.
• It will clear habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, like the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.
3) Global environmental issues
• Santos’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the pipeline claims the economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gas field and Hunter gas pipeline, but doesn’t take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gas field.
• The EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gas field and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.
Conclusion

This project must be stopped to ensure that Santos does not drill its 850 wells in the Pilliga, piercing the heart of the Great Artesian Basin aquifers, to make money for its investors at the expense of the Gomeroi people, all the residents of Australia, the global community now and for generations to come!!

What world do you want for your children’s, children’s, children??

Submission in Support of the Narrabri Lateral Project

I write to express my unequivocal support for the Narrabri Lateral project, a strategically important piece of energy infrastructure that will deliver enduring economic, energy security and regional development benefits for New South Wales and Australia.

From an economic perspective, the project represents a significant investment that will generate substantial employment opportunities throughout both the construction and operational phases. It will stimulate local and regional supply chains, create meaningful opportunities for small and medium enterprises, and contribute materially to state and federal revenues through taxation and royalties. These benefits will extend well beyond the project footprint, supporting broader economic activity, public services and community infrastructure. Moreover, the responsible development of domestic gas resources strengthens Australia’s energy competitiveness and resilience in an increasingly uncertain global energy market.

The Narrabri Lateral will also play a critical role in enhancing energy security and market stability. By increasing reliable domestic gas supply, the project will help mitigate forecast shortfalls, moderate price volatility and ensure continuity of supply for households, businesses and industry. Gas remains an essential transitional fuel, providing firming capacity that underpins grid reliability as renewable energy penetration continues to expand, and supporting energy-intensive industries that are vital to the Australian economy.

For regional communities, the project offers a meaningful and long-term economic stimulus. Local procurement, workforce development, skills transfer and sustained employment will strengthen the regional economy, while associated investment in infrastructure—such as roads, utilities and services—will deliver lasting benefits that support future growth and diversification.

Importantly, the project will be developed and operated within a robust regulatory framework, informed by contemporary best practice in environmental management. Comprehensive assessment, monitoring and rehabilitation requirements will ensure impacts are minimised and managed responsibly. The application of modern technologies and operational controls will protect water resources, limit surface disturbance and contribute to lower emissions outcomes when compared with more emissions-intensive energy sources.

In summary, the Narrabri Lateral project represents a measured, responsible and forward-looking approach to energy development. It delivers a clear public interest outcome by strengthening energy security, supporting regional prosperity and upholding rigorous environmental standards.

I respectfully urge decision-makers to approve the project in recognition of its substantial and long-term benefits for local communities, New South Wales and the nation as a whole.

We strongly urge the NSW Government NOT to approve this application by Santos for a 55 km gas pipeline, connecting the Narrabri Gas Project to the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline. The Pilliga as a whole has deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The Pilliga forest, which is a place of enormous environmental importance as it is a recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin water resource. Construction will clear 168 hectares of this precious forest and will clear habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, like the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.

The EIS release is hurried and the document is incomplete. Santos itself notes that further studies are still being undertaken.
The review period is grossly insufficient.
Too much reliance has been placed on desktop studies rather than on-the-ground surveys.
The approach to post-construction flooding is flawed.
This project will facilitate the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gas.
Landholders will suffer further when the pipeline is abandoned.
This project has no social licence.
This project flies in the face of Australia's international commitments.
There is simply no need for this project to proceed.
Further information is provided in the attached document.