I am a Gomeroi man, and I object to the NLP project.

I am incredibly concerned about the impact on Gomeroi cultural sites, and the follow on impact this will inevitably have on connection to the land, language and songlines. In May of this year, the National Native Title Tribunal imposed a condition that Santos could not undertake any future ground or surface work for the Narrabri Gas Project on or within 500m of Bohena Creek due to it's cultural significance. I do not understand why this condition should not apply to the NLP.
In line with this, the destruction of habitat of hundreds of diverse species of plants and animals, as well as many species that are currently endangered or threatened. Many of these are totems to us. The pipeline and the infrastructure that comes with it will divide the environment not just physically in terms of geography but also culturally, and will lead to blocked access for Gomeroi people to the land.

I am concerned about inadequate oversight and consultation hindering response to leaks and environmental damage as well as hindering prevention of future leaks and damage, combined with the Government's changes to gas leak reporting requirements in recent years. I am concerned for this due to methane leaks that have already occurred both in the Pilliga and in other Santos or Santos subsidiary owned gas projects.

There has not been adequate consideration in EIS and related assessments to the impact to waterways that are connected to the Great Artesian Basin, and just how much of a geographical area fits into this category. A leak during construction or extraction has potential to be one of the greatest unnatural environmental catastrophes on Australian soil since the follow on from Wittenoom or Maralinga. There are a total of 39 watercourse crossings proposed for the project, expanding the possibility beyond simply during construction or extraction.

These environmental impacts pose huge risks to the Aboriginal communities, non-Aboriginal communities and to agriculture both in the immediate area and places further away that fall in the same water catchment/Murray/Darling Basin system.

I do not believe Santos conducted consultation transparently and in good faith. The early December meeting should have waited until after the appeal hearing before the Courts in March 2026. I would like to hear specific strategies Santos used in obtaining informed consent from elders, community members and Native Title applicants with low levels of literacy.

This project presents a unique opportunity in a time where Federal Government has announced significant reforms focused at environmental protection, and where a significant part of the current State Government's election strategy was environmental promises, where a difference can be made in accordance with these promises and impending reforms.

I object to this project and the imminent threat of irreversible damage it poses.

With the continuing scientific proof that climate change is already happening, we cannot afford to have any more gas projects created. Many people are now switching to renewable energy because they realise that to continue building gas pipelines will not help them, or the planet. Not only that but the change to the environment if this project goes ahead will be devastating, to say the least! Living in the Northern Rivers of NSW, I have already experienced the effects of climate change. Santos' record on its environmental impacts of such projects should wake us all up to realising they are dishonest in their descriptions of looking after the land, and, especially the water. There is also the effects that such a pipeline will have on the Indigenous peoples of the area involved.

Oppose the project for these reasons
CSSI - not valid for the benifit of the majority of Australian people. It is a way to bypass environmental and economic issues that affect the majority and make the minority wealthier.
Gas production is not required to increase, we already have enough for Australia. This project provides a get rich quick scheme to sell our resources overseas and keep our gas prices high in Australia.
High risk of contaminating water supplies in the artesian basin and surrounding farmlands that really are critical to Australians.
Increase fire danger in a high fire risk area.
Increase co2 into our atmosphere.
Project of no or little benifit to the health and well-being of Australians.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.