Narrabri Lateral Pipeline

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. This 55km high-pressure gas pipeline is not a standalone proposal, it is the missing link enabling Santos’ damaging and controversial Narrabri Gas Project. If approved, it would open the door to 850 coal seam gas wells in the Pilliga Forest, causing irreversible risks to cultural heritage, farmland, water resources and biodiversity.

1. Impacts on Gomeroi cultural heritage

The Pilliga Forest is a place of profound cultural, spiritual and social significance to Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal has recognised that all water resources in this area, and Bohena Creek in particular, hold major cultural importance, and found that no ground or surface disturbance should occur within 500 metres of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi consent.

Despite this, the proposal plans to drill the pipeline directly under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks, disturbing alluvial groundwater systems and disrespecting cultural values. Alarmingly, the Environmental Impact Statement fails to address the cultural significance of Bohena Creek in its entirety.

Construction activities would also destroy two known sites of cultural significance and damage at least four more. Gomeroi Traditional Owners have been clear that the integrity of the Pilliga must remain intact for cultural wellbeing and practice. This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with that requirement.

2. Impacts on farmland and forest

The pipeline route cuts through 12 farms, with nearly half of all disturbance occurring on agricultural land, including one-fifth on cropping land. This threatens soil quality, farm productivity, biosecurity and the long-term viability of local food and fibre production.

The remainder of the route slices through the Pilliga Forest. Construction would require clearing 168 hectares of forest, carving a 30-metre-wide corridor through the Pilliga East, fragmenting habitat, creating edge effects and increasing vulnerability to invasive species, weeds and fire.

The Pilliga is a stronghold for several threatened species, including the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern Pygmy Possum and Corben’s Long-eared Bat. These species rely on unbroken habitat and specific ecological conditions that cannot be easily restored once cleared. The biodiversity impacts are severe, long-lasting and poorly justified.

3. Environmental and climate impacts ignored

The Environmental Impact Statement selectively emphasises claimed economic “benefits”, but fails to account for the full environmental and climate costs of the Narrabri Gas Project and the Hunter Gas Pipeline, both of which this pipeline is designed to facilitate.

Narrabri is projected to become one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in NSW, expected to rank as the sixth-largest single source in the state. The pipeline proposal does not meaningfully assess these emissions or the broader negative economic impacts associated with worsening climate change, impacts that will be borne by communities, ecosystems and future generations.

4. Water risks

The Pilliga acts as a critical recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin, one of Australia’s most important and fragile groundwater systems. Disturbing alluvial groundwater, creek beds and soils undermines the long-term safety of this vital water resource. The proposal fails to provide adequate safeguards or credible long-term assurances.

Conclusion

The Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is not in the public interest. It is a destructive and unnecessary project that risks:
• irreparable cultural damage,
• harm to threatened species,
• clearing of significant forest habitat,
• loss of productive farmland,
• impacts on water and the Great Artesian Basin, and
• major, unaccounted-for contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

For these reasons, I urge the NSW Government to reject the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline and protect the cultural heritage, biodiversity, farmland and water resources that communities rely on.

I respectfully request that this submission be recorded as a formal objection.

We are feeling the impacts now of climate change with the increasing frequency and ferocity of natural disasters in Australia. Costing our economy billions of dollars for the health impacts, to remediate and mitigate these ongoing catastrophic events. Our greenhouse emissions are still rising and Australia is one of the world's largest miners of fossil fuels. We urgently need to reduce greenhouse emissions and transition away from fossil fuels to protect the health of our people and our long term economy. 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.

Melissa Barrass || Carrington, NSW || [email protected] || 4/12/2025

NSW Department of Planning and Environment

RE: Submission of Objection – Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (SUB-101240956)

To the Department of Planning and Environment,

I am writing to formally register my strong objection to the proposed Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. This infrastructure is a critical enabling component for Santos’ proposed 850-well Narrabri coal seam gasfield.

My objection rests on the significant and unacceptable risks this project poses to Gomeroi cultural heritage, regional biodiversity, agricultural productivity, and the integrity of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process regarding cumulative climate impacts. Based on the evidence outlined below, this project is not in the public interest and should be rejected.

1. Critical Threats to Gomeroi Cultural Heritage
The proposed pipeline route represents a direct affront to the deep spiritual, social, and cultural significance held by the Gomeroi people for the Pilliga region as a whole.

Most alarmingly, the proposal contradicts findings by the National Native Title Tribunal. The Tribunal has acknowledged the major cultural importance of water resources to the Gomeroi people, specifically ruling that there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500 meters of Bohena Creek without Gomeroi consent.

Despite this, Santos’ proposal involves drilling directly beneath Bohena Creek and crossing six other major creeks, thereby disturbing vital alluvial groundwater systems. The current EIS is fundamentally flawed as it completely omits discussion of the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Creek system for Gomeroi people.

Furthermore, construction is projected to destroy two known sites of cultural significance and damage an additional four. The Gomeroi people have stated that the ecological integrity of the Pilliga is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice; fragmenting this landscape via a pipeline is an unacceptable Cultural Heritage impact.

2. Irreversible Environmental Fragmentation and Biodiversity Loss
The physical footprint of this pipeline will have severe consequences for the unique ecosystems of the Pilliga. Approximately half of the pipeline’s route cuts through the Pilliga forest, necessitating the clearing of 168 hectares of native vegetation.

The construction will create a 30-metre-wide cleared swathe through the Pilliga East forest. This significant fragmentation will severely impact microbats and small mammals that rely on contiguous canopy cover. The clearing of critical habitat directly threatens species for which the Pilliga serves as a crucial stronghold, including the Pilliga Mouse, the Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat. The environmental cost to these threatened species is too high.

3. Significant Impact on Agricultural Land
The pipeline route crosses 12 operational farms, jeopardising agricultural productivity in the region. Nearly half of the total land disturbed by the project is designated agricultural land, with one-fifth identified as valuable cropping land. The degradation of productive farmland for fossil fuel infrastructure is a short-sighted land-use strategy that undermines long-term regional food security.

4. Flawed Economic and Climate Impact Assessment in the EIS
The Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Santos is methodologically unsound. The EIS claims the economic "benefits" derived from the broader Narrabri gasfield and associated pipelines, yet it fails to account for the cumulative environmental and economic costs of the entire project.

A genuine assessment must take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water resources, and the climate resulting from the wider gasfield operation that this pipeline enables. Given that the Narrabri project is predicted to become the sixth-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in NSW, the EIS must be amended to fully quantify the negative economic impacts of these emissions. Approving a project based on a cost-benefit analysis that ignores its primary long-term costs is fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.

Conclusion
This pipeline is a polluting and damaging project that facilitates further fossil fuel expansion in highly sensitive cultural and ecological landscapes. Because of the severe risks to Gomeroi heritage, the fragmentation of critical habitat, the disturbance of agricultural land, and the inadequacies of the EIS regarding cumulative climate impacts, I urge the NSW Government to reject this proposal.

Sincerely,
Melissa Barrass

4th December 2025

I object to the proposed Narrabri Lateral Pipeline on the basis of the guaranteed destruction of Gomeroi cultural heritage and sacred sites, and the immediate and future enviromental impacts, many of which were not properly considered in Santos’ environmental impact statement. The approval of the proposed Narrabri lateral gas pipeline, based on a flawed and incomplete environmental impact assessment, would be an unacceptable and irreversible assault on Gomeroi cultural heritage, productive agricultural lands, and vital forest ecosystems.
Responsible, sustainable developmen must begin with a foundational respect for the preservation of Indigenous cultural heritage. The Narrabri lateral gas pipeline’s proposed route represents a profound failure to meet this fundamental obligation, planning a path of disturbance through lands of deep spiritual and social significance to the Gomeroi people. The integrity of the Pilliga region is central to the culture and social and emotional wellbeing of the Gomeroi
The sacred nature of this area is not a matter of debate. The National Native Title Tribunal has formally acknowledged the deep significance of the Pilliga and specifically recognized that all its water resources, especially Bohena Creek, are of major cultural importtance. The Tribunal explicitly recommended that there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500 meters of Bohena Creek without the express consent of the Gomeroi people. This recommendation establishes a clear protective boundary around a site of immense cultural value. Despite this, Santos plans to directly violate these waters by drilling the pipeline directly under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks. This action will disturb the alluvial groundwater system, desecrating a feature central to Gomeroi heritage.
Despite the direct violation of Gomeroi cultural heritage entailed by this project, the EIS submitted by Santos entirely fails to discuss the cultural significance of Bohena Creek for the Gomeroi people. This oversight invalidates any claim of a thorough or respectful impact assessment. Furthermore, the project also guarantees the complete destruction of two known sites of cultural significance while damaging and additional four sites. As the Gomeroi people have stated, the Pilliga’s integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole. This principle of integrity, so vital to cultural survival, is completely violated by the Santos proposal.
Beyond the devastating cultural cost, the pipeline will carve a destructive path through productive agricultural lands and ecologically critical forests alike. This dual impact threatens both local economies dependent on farming and the fragile biodiversity of the unique Pilliga forest ecosystem. \
Damage to farming economies will accrue as a result:
• The pipeline’s route crosses 12 farms.
• Just under half of the land to be disturbed is agricultural.
• Active cropping land accounts for one-fifth of the total disturbed area.

The other half of the land affected belongs to the Pilliga forest, where damage will be particularly severe and long-lasting due to the opening of a wide, permanent corridor, which will fragment the sensitive and interconnected habitat.
• Total Clearing: A total of 168 hectares of forest will be permanently cleared.
• Habitat Fragmentation: The project will cut a 30-metre-wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest, creating a permanent barrier for wildlife.
• Impact on Fauna: This clearing and fragmentation will cause particularly serious damage to vulnerable native species, including microbats and small mammals that rely on a contiguous forest canopy.
Threats to At-Risk Species
The Pilliga forest serves as a stronghold for several threatened species. The planned habitat clearing puts these already vulnerable populations at significant risk. The species directly threatened include:
• The Pilliga Mouse
• The Eastern pygmy possum
• Corben’s Long-eared Bat
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) produced by Santos is not a neutral, comprehensive assessment, but a promotional document masquerading as objective analysis, strategically omitting the project's economic liabilities to secure approval. This selective approach presents a distorted picture that conceals the project's true, cumulative impact on the environment and climate.
The central flaw of the EIS is its compartmentalization of responsibility. Santos’s statement promotes the economic "benefits" of the gasfield and pipeline while simultaneously failing to take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield. The Narrabri gasfield is predicted to become the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.
To approve one piece of infrastructure for a larger project, on the basis of an EIS that ignores climate impact from that project and guarantees the permanent destruction of Gomeroi cultural sites while further fragmenting significant, sensitive habitat which is home to threatened species is irresponsible and indefensible.

Submission Objecting to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. I oppose this project because of its unacceptable risks to Gomeroi cultural heritage, the Pilliga forest, local farmland, and our shared climate future.

First and foremost, the pipeline poses an enormous threat to Gomeroi cultural heritage. The Pilliga is not just a landscape—it is a living cultural place. It holds deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal has already recognised that Bohena Creek, and all surrounding water resources, are of major cultural importance and should not be disturbed without Gomeroi consent. Despite this, Santos’ plans involve drilling under Bohena Creek and across six other major waterways. The Environmental Impact Statement fails to acknowledge the cultural significance of Bohena Creek at all, let alone respect its importance. The project will also destroy two known sites of significance and damage several more. These impacts are irreversible, and they directly contradict the clear statements of Gomeroi people that the integrity of the Pilliga must be kept whole.

The project is also deeply concerning from an environmental and agricultural perspective. The proposed pipeline crosses 12 farms and will disturb large areas of agricultural and cropping land—land that communities rely on for economic sustainability and food production. Almost half of the land to be disturbed is productive farmland. The other half cuts directly through the Pilliga forest. Clearing 168 hectares of forest for a 30-metre wide construction corridor will cause lasting damage to native ecosystems, including habitats for threatened species such as the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern Pygmy Possum and Corben’s Long-eared Bat. These species have already lost significant habitat across the state; further clearing jeopardises their survival.

Beyond these immediate impacts, the Environmental Impact Statement attempts to justify the project by referencing claimed economic benefits of the Narrabri Gas Project and the Hunter Gas Pipeline. Yet it fails to take responsibility for the broader costs—ecological, hydrological, cultural, and climate-related—of opening up the Pilliga to 850 coal seam gas wells and constructing the two associated pipelines. The EIS does not account for the negative economic impacts of the substantial greenhouse gas emissions the project would enable. Narrabri is predicted to be one of the largest sources of greenhouse pollution in NSW; failing to consider the full climate burden is a serious omission that undermines the credibility of the assessment.

This pipeline is not a small, isolated proposal. It is the missing link that would enable a large-scale industrial gasfield in one of NSW’s most culturally and environmentally significant landscapes. Once the Pilliga is cut open, cleared, drilled and industrialised, it cannot be restored.

For these reasons, I urge the NSW Government to reject the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline and require Santos to address the cultural, environmental and climate impacts in full. The long-term health of our land, water, climate and cultural heritage must outweigh short-term private profit.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I oppose the construction by Santos of a high-pressure gas pipeline from the Pilliga forest to near Baan Baa.
Here is a very brief outline of my reasons:
The effect on the water table would be profound. The Pilliga forest is a recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin.

A lot of the Forest would have to be cleared. Removing trees and habitat for small mammals is clearly undesirable. Removing trees contributes to climate change, which would obviously be further exacerbated by drilling for coal seam gas.

There is a lot of community opposition to coal seam gas, and the Pilliga forest is important to the Gomeroi people.

I object to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (the project).
We cannot afford to expand the gas industry in Australia - especially when there is opportunity to better direct current gas operations in Queensland to redirect exports to the NSW domestic market. The proposed pipeline will facilitate new development (with likely foreseeable redundancy due to production costs) and initiate environmental destruction along its construction path.
The proposed pipeline will traverse productive agricultural lands. The pipeline presents a direct threat of facilitating the permanent depletion and contamination of the Great Artesian Basin - upon which our environment and farming communities rely.
In this age of extreme climate events - currently experienced across NSW - the pipeline presents unacceptable and unavoidable risks both during construction and operation; extreme floods, heatwaves, fires are on the cards and are happening now in my region. The unintended exposure risk to air pollutants, risk of environmental rehabilitation failing, impacts on water resources, disruption to current agricultural practice and opening the Pilliga Forest to increased fire hazard are expected risks to those communities that live along the pipeline route.
The negative economic impacts of gas industry expansion from the Narrabri Gas Project will spread outside its immediate footprint - facilitated by the project. The project will unconscionably lock in greenhouse emissions for many decades.
We all know - the way to a renewable, cheaper energy future is through less gas and other fossil fuels, rather than more.
The Proponent notes (Strategic context and project need) AEMO has stated gas will continue to play a key role in Australian energy markets, however, fails to establish a case for the Narrabri Gas Project's required extra infrastructure. Other options are possible and less destructive.
The 2020 IPC conclusion regarding the Narrabri Gas Project, that NSW is unlikely to meet its gas needs without that project, fails to address the current real life situation where gas consumption has fallen and gas price has continued to rise.
The project does not have social license to operate. It has been reported (ABC News October 2025) that only 30% of landholders have signed up with Santos along the 800km pipeline route.
I believe it is political suicide for the NSW Premier to threaten compulsory land acquisition for this project. Many people like myself who live outside the development footprint, do not support the project based on the inevitable environmental and social impacts. The case of alternative options to gas supply for NSW have not been transparently considered and costed.
At this time in history where we are all staring down the barrel of climate catastrophe, the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline should be rejected.

Submission to NSW Planning against Narrabri Lateral Pipeline
I am an older Australian with many ties to rural NSW where I lived for much of my life. I have three daughters and seven grandchildren. The awful prospect that my daughters and all their generation face in navigating their children through climate change in Australia fills me with anxiety for them. It is my duty as an elder to keep fighting for a stable climate, safe water supplies and intact ecosystems to enable future generations to survive.
My main objection to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is that it would enable the establishment of the Narrabri Gas Project. The Independent Panning Commission, despite compelling expert advice to the contrary, in 2020 granted permission to Santos to drill 850 gas wells in the Pilliga Forest near Narrabri in and around a recharge zone of the Great Artesian Basin. The approval of the Lateral Pipeline would provide the last link to a larger approved pipeline and thus allowed the gas to be exported to market. The destruction of the Great Artesian Basin would follow as the 850 gas wells depressurised the aquifers and leaked toxic material into them. The Pilliga Forest would lose its integrity in a vast grid of industrialisation which would destroy important cultural sites of the Gomeroi people as well as the ecosystems stretching throughout the region.
The Gomeroi Traditional Owners have determinedly fought against Santos in the Native Title Tribunal for years to defend their land (a process Santos cynically calls “consultation”). They are presently awaiting the outcome of an appeal.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the Narrabri Gas Project will be massive, as methane leaks are always substantial from any production projects. Methane is 84 times more dangerous than CO2 for its first 20 years in the atmosphere. After the gas is burnt, the CO2 produced will add further to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere. Whether produced as Scope 1, Scope 2 or Scope 3, increased emissions can no longer be endured by the planet if the climate is to be kept within the limits which will sustain human life.
My other objection to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is that the actual building of it will cause damage to the forest, water and ecosystems. However, once it is operational its damaging effects will be much greater, as described above.
For the sake of the generations below mine, I implore you to reject this proposal.

Having followed the development of various gas companies over the last 15 to 20 years I am very concerned about the environmental damage that this NLGP Santos is proposing will cause. It is a damaging and polluting pipeline and will open up the Pilliga for Santos’ proposed 850 gas wells which threaten our underground aquifers that supply beautiful water to the Liverpool Plains farms.
To threaten a vital water supply on the driest continent I’m the world is ludicrous.
Santos plans to drill the pipeline under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks disturbing the alluvial ground water.
Ask your self,Is it environmentally advisable to cut across a State forest and fertile cropping land. I think not.

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
I strongly object to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. All the reliable science says that we are currently in an escalating climate catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. To be aiding and abetting this crisis through expanding the fossil fuel industry is not merely reckless – history will judge it as criminal.
The Pilliga is the largest remnant semi-arid woodland in the state, filled with biodiversity and carbon storage. A corridor through it will severely disrupt the ecological integrity of the forest and contribute to the increasing global crisis of extinctions, as well as adding to the carbon footprint of gas extraction, an industry which notoriously under-estimates the amount of methane it emits. Methane is, of course, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.
With two thirds of landholders along the route not agreeing to host the pipeline, there is no social licence for it. In particular, there is very strong objection to it from most Gamilaraay, Gamilaroi and Gomeroi Traditional Owners, who have a long connection to this sacred place, and sustainably managed it for thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of years. They are already among the worst impacted by the increasingly obvious extreme weather caused by global warming, as well as enduring restrictions on their religious and ceremonial obligations in the Pilliga.
Additionally, local farmers – already suffering from worsening droughts, floods, temperature extremes, mini-cyclones and hail - are deeply concerned about contamination and depletion impacts on the Great Artesian Basin, other aquifers, and numerous creeks and waterways that are required by them and human and ecological communities downstream. These impacts have not been adequately considered in the assessments, which should include the ‘water trigger’ in federal environment laws. Furthermore, with corporations such as Allianz now refusing to insure properties with gas infrastructure, many farmers may suffer financial and insecurity issues, and be left with stranded assets.
Long-term local employment, and the environment, would be better served by carefully chosen renewable energy projects, retrofitting housing, low-impact food production, agro-forestry and carbon sequestration plantings, and energy reduction measures.
To summarise, this proposal will make a significant contribution to global warming, impact deleteriously on Aboriginal, farming and ecological communities, and add to the scarcity of potable water in this driest of inhabited continents. I urge the state government not to approve, or support in any way, this potentially disastrous project.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this submission.

Sincerely,
Associate Professor Marty Branagan,
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Science,
University of New England,
Australia.

Submission in support of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (SSI-53307723)

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (NLP)
Application: SSI-53307723
EPBC: 2024/10050
Exhibition period: 20 November 2025 to 18 December 2025
NSW Planning Portal

From: Brad Mullard
Address: 32 Courigal Street Lake Haven NSW
Date: 6/12/2025

1. My position and interest
I am writing to support approval of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (NLP). I make this submission as a gas energy consumer. I rely on gas for everyday household needs and am concerned about energy affordability and reliability over the next decade. Infrastructure that improves access to domestic supply is directly relevant to my household’s energy security and cost-of-living pressures.
2. What the project is
The NLP is a proposed high-pressure gas transmission pipeline of approximately 55 kilometres within the Narrabri Shire, linking the Narrabri Gas Project processing facility at Leewood to the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline east of Baan Baa.
The EPBC referral summary describes the pipeline as approximately 50-60 km long, primarily underground, with limited surface infrastructure such as scraper stations, cathodic protection systems, access tracks and communications infrastructure.
The referral also notes an estimated disturbance footprint of approximately 285 hectares, including a construction right of way up to 40 metres wide plus temporary work areas.
3. Strategic importance for NSW energy security
The NSW Government has declared the NLP as both State Significant Infrastructure and Critical State Significant Infrastructure.
The Statement of Reasons records that this status was granted because the pipeline was considered essential to NSW for economic reasons, including that it would:
• provide a crucial link from the Narrabri Gas Project to the NSW gas market,
• strengthen reliability of the east coast market for NSW users, and
• support the development of local supply to place downward pressure on prices.
As a consumer, I consider this logic sound. The NLP is not a speculative standalone line. It is an enabling connection designed to move gas from an approved project into an approved network link, helping to shore up a system that is expected to remain tight at times during the transition.
4. Market evidence supporting the need for resilient supply
Recent public reporting from the ACCC continues to highlight the sensitivity of the east coast supply-demand balance to LNG export decisions regarding uncontracted gas. The ACCC stated in June 2025 that the short-term outlook for 2025 and 2026 had deteriorated, with risks of shortfall depending on export behaviour.
In October 2025, the ACCC advised that the first quarter of 2026 could see a modest surplus of 2 to 24 PJ, but stressed that conditions remained tight in the southern states and still depended on how uncontracted gas was handled.
The Commonwealth’s quarterly outlook similarly references this ACCC surplus range and notes the ongoing role of policy mechanisms requiring LNG producers to offer uncontracted gas domestically before export.
This public evidence supports a straightforward conclusion: NSW benefits from diversified, reliable domestic supply options and the infrastructure needed to deliver them.
5. Support with strong environmental and community conditions
My support is based on the expectation that the project will be subject to robust, enforceable conditions. The EPBC referral summary states the pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with AS 2885 and the APGA Code of Environmental Practice.
I encourage the Department to ensure these commitments are anchored in detailed approval conditions, including:
Water and groundwater protection
• clear baseline monitoring prior to disturbance,
• conservative setbacks and construction controls for sensitive areas, and
• transparent reporting of performance outcomes.
Biodiversity and land rehabilitation
• an avoidance-first approach during final alignment refinement,
• strict weed, biosecurity and soil management protocols, and
• measurable rehabilitation success criteria with independent auditing.
Landholder and community engagement
The public debate shows there are landholder concerns in the broader Narrabri and Hunter pipeline context.
To build social licence and reduce conflict risk, conditions should emphasise good-faith negotiation, practical property access arrangements, and fair, transparent rehabilitation and compensation frameworks.

Cultural heritage
• early and ongoing engagement with Traditional Owners,
• thorough survey and avoidance planning, and
• culturally appropriate monitoring during works where required.
This approach enables the state to capture the project’s public benefits while setting high standards for local protections.
6. Conclusion
As a gas energy consumer, I support approval of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline because it is a strategically recognised link that can improve reliability and resilience for NSW users. The project’s declared CSSI status reflects its importance to the state, including its intended role in strengthening supply security and placing downward pressure on prices.
I therefore support the project, subject to strong conditions that protect water resources, biodiversity, cultural heritage and landholder interests consistent with best-practice pipeline development.

Brad Mullard

As a resident of Central West NSW, well aware of the limited natural resources we have, I absolutely object to this project going ahead, and my main concern is water, land-clearing and Greenhouse gas emissions.
There is very little understanding of the impacts of methane and the risks of migratory emissions. Very few studies have been published on how clean and green gas really is. It doesn't help that the CSIRO funding and positions have been slashed. When a gas company assures the Queemslanders that boiling rivers and methane in the air are naturally occurring events, let's just say trust levels plummet. So the government wants to green light projects like a cowboy out on some wild west frontier. City premier making big decisions with no idea.
We are dealing with the Great Artesion Basin here. Using up/contaminating this resource for a transition fuel that acts as some supposed quick fix, profits then kept in the hands of a private company — whose environmental and safe infrastructure record is appalling — and the gas then sold back to Australians or sold offshore for others to profit, makes no economic sense. The cost to our country, our farmers, cultural heritage, water, animals and environment is far too great.

Face it. Fossil fuels are on the nose.
Starting up quick and dirty solutions to a global crisis when 66% of neighbours DO NOT want this reeks of hubris. I don't think the state government has been reading the room. One premier and his planning minister making decisions that last for lifetimes, when he could well be toppled before the next election.
I am so angry at the way "development" is being pushed through in this country without a care in the world. We are not a hole in the ground for short term gain, long term pain. Please stop now!
Thankyou.

I have visited this beautiful area of NSW and walked the trails and indigenous sites and decry this plan to defile this precious country.

The Pilliga Forest is the last remaining original forested land of this type in the state and must remain undamaged by this proposal.

All studies by respected think tanks, The Australia Institute, particularly have shown there is not a need for more gas in our country. Just stop exporting our natural resources to other countries and store the gas for domestic use.

I cite below under headings my various objections to this proposed project including:-

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.

Impacts on farm land 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.

Other issues:

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.

Please reject this application for the construction of this pipeline in light of my above points.

1. Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest.
2. Santos’ EIS for the pipeline claims the economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but does not take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.
3. 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.

Australia is one of the largest exporters of gas in the world, the only one without a reservation policy. Countries like Japan who buy our gas export more on to other countries than the entire Australian market uses demonstrating that more gas supply will not benefit Australia. To give approval to companies that continue to be questionable in regard to following the law and using Australian tax payer funded courts, police, administration and governance would be foolish at best. With these basic concepts notably absent from the project reports and documentation, there is no justification for the ongoing loss of wealth and value taken for this project.
This project if approved, foreigners will be given wealth and health taken from Australians without justification or value exchange. The fossil fuel industries own reports show that gas mining specifically, damages towns as it strips the trained staff away from employers and overall, leads to less jobs in time as the town never recovers and more jobs overall are lost than were ever created for the short term mining. Thus the justification for jobs is also proven a misnomer by the gas industries own reports, be it on page 503. I assume government officials dont read all the way to the back considering the situation.
Looking specifically at this project, the pipeline has not demonstrated it is the least impactful route scientifically. This is shown in the reports with words used to smooth over failures and shortcomings in the surveys. Basic day and night studies, limited in nature, would be better described as trying to not find anything. The details are important if the reason for the entire project is solid. Unfortunately, this project is so poor in outcome, it will lead to a net loss from Australia, focusing on details would waste time as thus working for free for the very people who are trying to streal our wealth through this approval.
Considering this consultation has been excluded from many Australians, having hidden the reports, submission and other documentation to stop anyone but highly skilled and experienced people who have used this system before, your doing your best to work for the gas company that is foriegn owned and legally questionable. This will be born out in the numbers with many people I know, interested in making a submission to this project but few if any other individuals will complete this becuase its a purposefully difficult process. Its disapointing this submission is a continuation of the bias towards foreign owned extreme wealthy people over Australians, excluding us from being involved in our future.
So the gas is not needed here and will not bring Australia benifit if history is to be used as a guide, the project has been through an assessment process and the local community clearly showed it did not approve, numerous people protested and farmers are now aware how foreign wealthy can force their way onto any farm and damage Australian businesses with no compensation. This project has already damaged the community, trust in government and economic strength of the Narrabri community. This submission is now using their taxes to damage them more for foriegners with no benifit to Australia?! I am absolutely confused why this is even a proposal considering it will decrease the wealth in Australia, damage jobs, increase extreme weather for generations, remove threatened species which are continueing to be found as the solution to health challenges EG Funnelweb spider venom used to sedate hearts for better heart transplant survival. This is all provable and is a common theme which I note, are parts of an assessment process for a mine or major infrastructure. All of this opportunity, taken away and removed forever for a short term project where if the actual costs were calculated truthfully it should never even get to the approval state.
How can the community have confidence considering you are fighting against Australians for foreigners who have been known to subvert laws to take from anyone, legal or not. This company, industry actually, has an ongoing questionable behaviours to the point that every line in very report must be seen as an attempt to steal from Australia as this is what has been demonstartively proven in court. Report after report of misinformation, found to be misleading, and you base our future on this, giving this theft ligitimacy. The entire process has been corrupted for this to be here and me wasting my time on a saterday instead of building houses.
As an environmental scientist, I can see you can't prove that the company will not impact threatened species in this sensitive habitat. I note the Koala numbers are unknown in this area, the report downplays threatened species, but no proper assessment of cover and abundance for all potential threatened species has been completed. This is all small in comparison impact from this project to the extinction risk of the climate changing due to this project. Fossil fuels have risen the global temperature by 1.5degrees above pre industrial by the use and mining of fossil fuels. Continuation of this, which this project is a significant part, will lead to 2 degrees. I note the new data showing 1.5 has already triggered tipping points leading to the extinction and loss of hundreds of species due to this and other fossil fuel projects going ahead. As runaway climate change will impact all of the species and values in the area of this project and this project is adding to that, this project should can not assess its impacts on threatened species until this effect from the fossil fuel driven climate change is included. Gas is a fossil fuel and thus critical transport lines such as pipelines require climate impact assessment as without the pipeline, there is no viable project. Gas is not clean and the implication is odd and misleading. Using gas has not decreased use of fossil fuels, it has increased the climate impcat. It is the assessment teams job to ensure these impacts are assessed and mitigated for all critical stages of this project.
On a personal note, I'm interested in how you think the gas company can mitigate 15% of Australian homes becoming uninsurble and unliviable in the next 15yrs (according to the Australian government) when this project will add to this cost and many others, not assessed in this approval yet. I see there is no comment on the negative impacts of basic impacts like replacing coastal walkways due to this projects significant implication on extreme weather increases. I see no comment on alot of areas of impact and value loss from this proposal giving me a clear impression, this is a fake consultation process, its not about ensuring the EPA Act and regulations are followed, its about ensuring approval by running over anything or anyone i the way. Its clear, the rising cost of living is due to the ongoing approval of projects such as these for decades, ignoring science, increasing the damage on infrastructure, using courts and other communiy facilities without payments, taking from our community, increasing energy costs thus inflation. Thus, approval of this will increase costs on NSW residents. I;d like to remind you this process is not for you to take their word for it,
The process being difficult, excludes most Australians from being involved, provides limited data, data that is incomplete and more to the point, so limited the impact of this can not be assessed, it shows the intent is not to help Australians. The ongoing shameless mismanagement of Australia resources and blaming renewables for this gross mismanagement, corruption and incompetence is not in any way supported and is called out for the treasonous intent inherent in a situation where foreigners are given advantage forcibly taken from Australians.

Consideration of the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principal would ensure that the EIS is rejected as completely inadequate.
Issues which are not adequately (if at all) addressed by the EIS include:
1. water including groundwater and the intention to drill under Bohena Creek and across 6 other major creeks
2. climate change and the frequency of catastrophic climate events (including the issue of emissions)
3. blasting
4. the cumulative impacts with the Narrabri Underground Stage 3
5. the pre-empting of
a. the decision of the Federal Court Challenge to Native Title Tribunal and
b. the completion of the Narrabri Gas Project and Hunter Gas Pipeline
Attached is my submission

I am strongly opposed to Santos Narrabri gas project/pipeline due to the risk of contamination to the Great Artesian Basin. Australia is a dry continent, which means we need to protect our limited water resources. Dr Currell informs that Santos have not addressed many of his concerns raised in 2017 including the lack of accurate local data, high risk of contamination and weak plans to address contamination when it occurs. I’m also concerned that our local Gomeroi people have not been listened to.
Narrabri has recently bore a major PFAS contamination of its local water supply. We do not want to risk the Great Artesian Basin becoming contaminated. Santos cannot guarantee there will be no contamination to water and surrounding land, so the project and pipeline should not go ahead.

I am a taxpayer and work in heavy manufacturing industry in Newcastle. From this perspective I understand the need in some situations for gas supply, however in this situation I do not the benefits of this project outweigh the environmental consequences. I believe the immense danger to the forest and surrounding area this lateral pipeline will disturb is untenable and is not worth any benefit it would potentially provide. The expense of the project would outweigh the cost of importing the gas which would pose far less danger to the environment.

My family is from Narrabri and I grew up travelling to the Pilliga to see koalas in their natural habitat. I was last there 2 weeks ago.
I grew up to become a veterinarian and I am a member of Vets for Climate Action because I know that climate change affects the welfare of animals as well as people.
Not only is this project contributing to climate change, it is destroying already severely limited koala habitat and risks damaging the Great Artesian Basin.
I strongly object to this project

The proposed pipeline will sever the Pilliga State Forest which is the largest inland forest in New South Wales. The pipeline corridor, the access and maintenance roads and the impact of leaks on waterways, and the risk posed in starting or exacerbating a bushfire appears significant and not addressed adequately. The pipeline should be routed around the Pilliga Forest to the north, rather than sever it. If this creates risks for landowners, then clearly the risks have not been adequately addressed. NB Whilst I currently reside in Queensland, I own and manage rural land in New South Wales. I respectfully suggest this application be refused, and the applicant be encouraged to submit a fresh proposal that routes the pipeline around the forest, to minimise its impacts on what is a unique and crucial forest.