Skip to main content
Name Withheld
Object
Picnic Pt , New South Wales
Message
Stop! When in doubt don't. But there is more than doubt here. There is examples of things going wrong and with horrendous effects on the environment and our health. I don't even know how this has gone this far.
Once an event occurs it's effect is detrimental and FOREVER.
Luke Seal
Object
Newcastle , New South Wales
Message
CSG is wrong and horrible for the environment, I don't know anybody in my state who supports it
Vanessa Widin
Object
Rosebank , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project as it risks the precious water sources, the local aboriginal people and farmers are against it, the native animals will lose their habitat, and coal seam gas risks human and animal heath.
Please do not go ahead with this submission.
Christine Coles
Object
Bangalow , New South Wales
Message
1. The Narrabri Gas Project risks precious water sources, including the Great Australian Basin--Australia's largest groundwater aquifer
The Narrabri gasfield poses a real risk to our two most precious water resources: the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. The area of the Great Artesian Basin with the highest recharge rates is almost entirely contained within the Pilliga East forest. In a worst-case scenario, the water removed for CSG extraction could reduce water pressure in the recharge areas--potentially stopping the free flow of waters to the surface at springs and bores across the whole Great Artesian Basin.¹

Creeks in the Pilliga run into the Namoi River--a part of the Murray Darling Basin. This system is vulnerable to contamination from drilling fluid spills and the salty treated water produced from the proposed 850 wells.

2. The Gamilaraay Traditional Custodians are opposed
There are hundreds of cultural sites as well as songlines and stories connecting the Gamilaraay to the forest and to the groundwater beneath. Gamilaraay people are deeply involved in the battle against CSG, and have told Santos they do not want their country sacrificed for a coal seam gas field.

3. Farmers and other local community reject the project
Extensive community surveys have shown an average of 96% opposition to CSG. This stretches across a massive 3.2 million hectares of country surrounding the Pilliga forest, including 99 communities. Hundreds of farmers have participated in protest actions unlike any previously seen in the region.

4. The Narrabri Gas Project has a long history of spills and leaks of toxic CSG water--Santos cannot be trusted to manage the project safely
Santos has already contaminated a freshwater aquifer in the Pilliga with uranium at levels 20 times higher than safe drinking water guidelines, as well as lead, aluminium, arsenic and barium². In addition, there have been over 20 reported spills and leaks of toxic CSG water from storage ponds, pipes and well heads. Santos cannot be trusted.

5. The Pilliga is a haven for threatened wildlife
The Pilliga is one of 15 nationally listed `biodiversity hotspots' and is vital to the survival of threatened species like the Koala, Spotted-tailed Quoll, Black-striped Wallaby, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Pilliga Mouse and South-eastern Long-eared Bat. The forest is home to over 200 bird species and is internationally recognised as an Important Bird Area². The Santos gasfield would fragment 95,000 hectares of the Pilliga with well pads, roads, and water and gas pipelines--damaging vital habitat and threatening the survival of endangered species.

6. Coal seam gas fuels dangerous climate change
Methane is by far the major component of natural gas, and is a greenhouse gas 72 times more powerful than CO². CSG fields contribute to climate change through the leakage of methane during the production, transport, processing and use of coal seam gas.

7. Human health is compromised by coal seam gas
A range of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds can be released into the air from coal seam gas operations, including flaring of gas wells. The effects of volatile organic compounds vary, but can cause eye, nose and airway irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and loss of coordination⁴. These impacts have been documented in human populations nearby to existing gasfields in Queensland, Sydney and in America.

8. The nation's premier optical astronomical observatory is at risk
The Siding Springs Observatory, situated in the Warrumbungles and adjacent to the Pilliga, is under threat from the Narrabri Gas Project due to light and dust pollution⁵. The area has been internationally recognised as a `dark sky park'⁶ and the 50m high gas flares proposed by Santos threaten the viability of the facility.

9. Thousands of tonnes of salt waste will result from the project
Santos has no solution for disposing of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of salt that will be produced. Between 17,000 and 42,000 tonnes of salt waste would be produced each year. This industry would leave a toxic legacy in NSW.

10. Risk of fires would increase throughout the Pilliga's tinder-box conditions
Methane flare stacks up to 50m high would be running day and night, even on total fire ban days. The Pilliga is prone to severe bushfires. The project would increase ignition sources as well as extracting, transporting and storing a highly flammable gas right within this extremely fire-prone forest.
Name Withheld
Object
Frankston , Victoria
Message
Don't do it!
Marilyn Willmer
Object
Glen Waverley , Victoria
Message
I am deeply shocked.

I thought there was a moratorium in NSW - there's enough evidence already to know the dangers - the damage can't be undone later.
Name Withheld
Object
Woodburn , New South Wales
Message
After careful consideration, I am writing to express my absolute opposition to the Narrabri Gas Project. I have undertaken considerable research and contemplated the various issues to reach this conclusion. Here are some of my main objections to this project:

* Climate change: The possibility of fugitive emissions and the lack of baseline data relating to coal seam gas extraction (http://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/70/#).

* The risks to groundwater: No matter how much Santos may strive for best practice, contamination is possible and even likely. Consider the pollution reported in the Blue Mountains this week, with the loss of 90% of insects downstream (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-26/blue-mountains-pollution-mine-wollangambe-river/8303644). This supposedly arose from an environmentally-responsible coal mine, but processes inevitably go wrong even with the best intentions. What cost to remediate groundwater - if it's even possible?

* Local community: The negative impact on the fabric of local communities, especially if the majority of the community is opposed to the development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solastalgia).

* Biodiversity: Our precious wildlife is already confronting habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. As climate change progresses, many species can't migrate to equivalent microenvironments so we must maintain, enhance and expand the habitat that remains, not place greater stresses upon it.

I understand that the proponent has put together a comprehensive environmental impact statement for this development. However, I've worked as an environmental scientist for consultancies in the past. It was soul-destroying work, as by their nature EISs mitigate impacts with the slimmest margins for the environment, because developments are about profit. I've seen a colleague in tears because she was forced by the client to reduce the recommended width of buffer zones for a project. An EIS is important for any development, but it can't address shortcuts driven by greed, negligence and inevitable human error.

I also understand that the development would generate jobs, but so too does renewal energy projects, environmental tourism and agriculture. I do not believe the potential short-term benefits of this project outweigh the short, medium and long-term negative impacts in this regard.

Coal and gas deposits aren't going anywhere. They'll still be there in the future when the impacts are better understood and technologies are more sophisticated. This type of short-termism is a two-fold blow for future generations - depleting their resources and leaving them to deal with the environmental consequences.

Please, do not approve this development.


Mark Rich
Object
manly , New South Wales
Message
The Narrabri Gas Project risks precious water sources, including the Great Australian Basin--Australia's largest groundwater aquifer

The Narrabri gasfield poses a real risk to our two most precious water resources: the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. The area of the Great Artesian Basin with the highest recharge rates is almost entirely contained within the Pilliga East forest. In a worst-case scenario, the water removed for CSG extraction could reduce water pressure in the recharge areas--potentially stopping the free flow of waters to the surface at springs and bores across the whole Great Artesian Basin.¹

Creeks in the Pilliga run into the Namoi River--a part of the Murray Darling Basin. This system is vulnerable to contamination from drilling fluid spills and the salty treated water produced from the proposed 850 wells.

There are hundreds of cultural sites as well as songlines and stories connecting the Gamilaraay to the forest and to the groundwater beneath. Gamilaraay people are deeply involved in the battle against CSG, and have told Santos they do not want their country sacrificed for a coal seam gas field.

Extensive community surveys have shown an average of 96% opposition to CSG. This stretches across a massive 3.2 million hectares of country surrounding the Pilliga forest, including 99 communities. Hundreds of farmers have participated in protest actions unlike any previously seen in the region.

The Narrabri Gas Project has a long history of spills and leaks of toxic CSG water--Santos cannot be trusted to manage the project safely. Santos has already contaminated a freshwater aquifer in the Pilliga with uranium at levels 20 times higher than safe drinking water guidelines, as well as lead, aluminium, arsenic and barium². In addition, there have been over 20 reported spills and leaks of toxic CSG water from storage ponds, pipes and well heads. Santos cannot be trusted.

The Pilliga is one of 15 nationally listed `biodiversity hotspots' and is vital to the survival of threatened species like the Koala, Spotted-tailed Quoll, Black-striped Wallaby, Eastern Pygmy-possum, Pilliga Mouse and South-eastern Long-eared Bat. The forest is home to over 200 bird species and is internationally recognised as an Important Bird Area². The Santos gasfield would fragment 95,000 hectares of the Pilliga with well pads, roads, and water and gas pipelines--damaging vital habitat and threatening the survival of endangered species.

Methane is by far the major component of natural gas, and is a greenhouse gas 72 times more powerful than CO². CSG fields contribute to climate change through the leakage of methane during the production, transport, processing and use of coal seam gas.

A range of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds can be released into the air from coal seam gas operations, including flaring of gas wells. The effects of volatile organic compounds vary, but can cause eye, nose and airway irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and loss of coordination⁴. These impacts have been documented in human populations nearby to existing gasfields in Queensland, Sydney and in America.

The Siding Springs Observatory, situated in the Warrumbungles and adjacent to the Pilliga, is under threat from the Narrabri Gas Project due to light and dust pollution⁵. The area has been internationally recognised as a `dark sky park'⁶ and the 50m high gas flares proposed by Santos threaten the viability of the facility.

Santos has no solution for disposing of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of salt that will be produced. Between 17,000 and 42,000 tonnes of salt waste would be produced each year. This industry would leave a toxic legacy in NSW.

Methane flare stacks up to 50m high would be running day and night, even on total fire ban days. The Pilliga is prone to severe bushfires. The project would increase ignition sources as well as extracting, transporting and storing a highly flammable gas right within this extremely fire-prone forest.

¹SoilFutures Consulting 2014, Great Artesian Basin Recharge Systems and Extent of Petroleum and Gas Leases. http://www.gabpg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GAB-Report1.pdf
²http://www.smh.com.au/environment/santos-coal-seam-gas-project-contaminates-aquifer-20140307-34csb.html
³BirdLife International (2017) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Pilliga http://www.birdlife.org
⁴Marion Carey Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA), Air pollution from coal seam gas may put public health at risk The Conversation, November 20, 2012
⁵https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/21/siding-spring-observatory-threat-coal-seam-gas-light-pollution
⁶http://darksky.org/first-dark-sky-park-in-australia-designated/ - See more at: https://www.wilderness.org.au/final-push-pilliga#sthash.VeR1dQz4.dpuf
Marylou Lewis
Object
West pymble , New South Wales
Message
I am very concerned on two fronts regarding the proposed CSG project in the Piliga. Fragmenting the vegetation through clearing will only lead to demise of the quality bushland. Mining for gas is risking the water quality, which our dry continent cannot afford. These two impacts will compromise pollinators in the local environment,Impossible to repair. The risk of contamination of the water table is too high risk impacting water quality in the larger catchment and state.
I say NO.
Wade Radisich
Object
Vasse , Western Australia
Message
Fracking should be banned immediately there are better alternatives. And when all the groundwater is poisoned can we proudly
Tell the next generation we actually tried to stop this madness. Money making shouldn't be the goal of life on earth how sad

Pagination

Subscribe to