Narrabri Gas

Our submission document objecting to this project is attached

See attached

My submission is in pdf and uploaded as an attachment

Please advise that you have received this submission

I originally lodged this submission a few hours ago. I am re-lodging it as I made a mistake with the box below -" Your view on the application". I did not realize it referred to whether you supported or opposed the development.

The Grafton Nannas oppose the development!

Mitchell Lewis
"Silverleigh'
319 Forest Way Road
Wee Waa NSW 2388

Attn: Executive Director, Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas EIS.
I object to this project and believe it should be rejected.
1. It will cause draw down of a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.
2. It will clear close to 1000 hectares of the Pilliga, the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife and crucially important to the spiritual, cultural and social life of the Gamilaraay people.
3. It will extract over 35 billion liters of groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and in the early years will generate tens of thousands of tonnes of salt that needs to be disposed of, also raising issues of how this salt will be disposed of.
4. Values of farming land and our properties within the area and surrounding areas of the gasfields will diminish which will be caused directly by CGS and concerns of we will be compensated if this does happen over the span of the project.
5. The social values of those who live in the area will be undermined by the air pollution caused by CGS. Undue stress and physiological strain is placed on all families living within this CSG zone.
6. Agricultural industry will be put at risk, causing economic upheaval.
7. CSG is harmful to health. Neither the NSW Government nor Santos have investigated or dealt with the serious health effects of coal seam gas now appearing in peer-reviewed research in the United States, Australia and World Wide.
8. Lack of accountability and compensation from Santos and gas companies if something does go wrong.
9. Dalby and Chinchilla have been effected by CSG, it has impacted negatively on communities through water contamination resulting in health issues, yet another reason why CSG should not continue.
10. Flooding would cause serious harmful effects to animals and humans should waste wash out of the contaminated ponds on gasfields.
11. It is not justified: Santos' own CSG export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable. NSW government should respond to this by investing in more reliable and ultimately cheaper renewable energy, not by letting Santos inflict more environmental, social and economic harm through GCS.
12. Our farm has been in our family for 4 generations and Santos can risk not only our way of life but also for future generations of farming and agriculture if water is contaminated or our farm value decreases. CSG only has an estimated life span of approximately 20 years.
13. The potential to dry up our bores, drop water levels in our bores making them unusable, cause water contamination and harm the great artesian basin. This will impact our income and farming practices as we rely on underground water for stock and domestic use.
14. Bullying, intimidation and harassment from staff at Narrabri Santos already to have CGS on our properties is causing great psychological distress for me and my family and this will continue if this project goes ahead.
15. We have diverse farming operations on our properties including grain growing and livestock (cattle, sheep and pigs) we are Meat Standard Australia (MSA) approved. We are concerned that being in the gasfeild area may impact on our accreditation and if our land or water is contaminated by CSG this will cause great financial distress on both our business and the agriculture industry. Other accreditation which could be affected by CSG is free range and RSPCA approved.
16. Concerns that public liability and other insurances would not be valid should a high risk industry be developed in the area or on my properties.
I urge the Government to reject this project and make the Great Artesian Basin recharge off-limits to gas mining.

Regards

Mitchell Lewis

Melissa Cain
"Silverleigh'
319 Forest Way Road
Wee Waa NSW 2388

Attn: Executive Director, Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas EIS.
I object to this project and believe it should be rejected.
1. It will cause draw down of a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.
2. It will clear close to 1000 hectares of the Pilliga, the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife and crucially important to the spiritual, cultural and social life of the Gamilaraay people.
3. It will extract over 35 billion liters of groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and in the early years will generate tens of thousands of tonnes of salt that needs to be disposed of, also raising issues of how this salt will be disposed of.
4. Values of farming land and our properties within the area and surrounding areas of the gasfields will diminish which will be caused directly by CGS and concerns of we will be compensated if this does happen over the span of the project.
5. The social values of those who live in the area will be undermined by the air pollution caused by CGS. Undue stress and physiological strain is placed on all families living within this CSG zone.
6. Agricultural industry will be put at risk, causing economic upheaval.
7. CSG is harmful to health. Neither the NSW Government nor Santos have investigated or dealt with the serious health effects of coal seam gas now appearing in peer-reviewed research in the United States, Australia and World Wide.
8. Lack of accountability and compensation from Santos and gas companies if something does go wrong.
9. Dalby and Chinchilla have been effected by CSG, it has impacted negatively on communities through water contamination resulting in health issues, yet another reason why CSG should not continue.
10. Flooding would cause serious harmful effects to animals and humans should waste wash out of the contaminated ponds on gasfields.
11. It is not justified: Santos' own CSG export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable. NSW government should respond to this by investing in more reliable and ultimately cheaper renewable energy, not by letting Santos inflict more environmental, social and economic harm through GCS.
12. Our farm has been in our family for 4 generations and Santos can risk not only our way of life but also for future generations of farming and agriculture if water is contaminated or our farm value decreases. CSG only has an estimated life span of approximately 20 years.
13. The potential to dry up our bores, drop water levels in our bores making them unusable, cause water contamination and harm the great artesian basin. This will impact our income and farming practices as we rely on underground water for stock and domestic use.
14. Bullying, intimidation and harassment from staff at Narrabri Santos already to have CGS on our properties is causing great psychological distress for me and my family and this will continue if this project goes ahead.
15. We have diverse farming operations on our properties including grain growing and livestock (cattle, sheep and pigs) we are Meat Standard Australia (MSA) approved. We are concerned that being in the gasfeild area may impact on our accreditation and if our land or water is contaminated by CSG this will cause great financial distress on both our business and the agriculture industry. Other accreditation which could be affected by CSG is free range and RSPCA approved.
16. Concerns that public liability and other insurances would not be valid should a high risk industry be developed in the area or on my properties.
I urge the Government to reject this project and make the Great Artesian Basin recharge off-limits to gas mining.

Regards

Melissa Cain

Submission to Santos Narrabri Gas EIS
I object to this project and recommend that it be rejected. I am from Attunga NSW & voluntarily manage 2 Conservation Agreement areas near Tamworth covering 2,742ha. The Santos Narrabri Gas project is not in keeping with sound environmental management.
Expected removal of 37L of groundwater from the largest temperate woodland in NSW with drawdown of the GAB + contaminated produced water damaging to health. Over 40,000 tonnes of salt extracted by costly reverse osmosis and put in landfill permanently damaging large areas of land.
Fragmentation and clearing of the forest affecting critically endangered Regent honeyeater, Pilliga Mouse and koalas.
Gas infrastructure located in a fire prone area posing unacceptable risk. Methane leaked/vented is 86x worse than CO@ as a greenhouse gas. EIS has inadequate maps of where 850 wells will be located or where lines + infrastructure will run between & around the forest. Constraints on Santos are weak + subject to change. The project has no social license. It is not wanted by this community and directly affects landholders & agricultural industry as well causing decrease in land value.

Please see attached

Christine Cain
86 Ison Road
Wee Waa NSW 2388
19th May 2017

Attn: Executive Director, Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

This is a submission to the Narrabri Gas EIS.
I object to this project and believe it should be rejected.
1. It will cause draw down of a recharge aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, a water resource relied upon by rural communities across western NSW.
2. It will clear close to 1000 hectares of the Pilliga, the largest temperate woodland in New South Wales, home to unique wildlife and crucially important to the spiritual, cultural and social life of the Gamilaraay people.
3. It will extract over 35 billion liters of groundwater, much of it in the first five years. This water will be treated and in the early years will generate tens of thousands of tonnes of salt that needs to be disposed of, also raising issues of how this salt will be disposed of.
4. Values of farming land and our properties within the area and surrounding areas of the gasfields will diminish which will be caused directly by CGS and concerns of we will be compensated if this does happen over the span of the project.
5. The social values of those who live in the area will be undermined by the air pollution caused by CGS. Undue stress and physiological strain is placed on all families living within this CSG zone.
6. Agricultural industry will be put at risk, causing economic upheaval.
7. CSG is harmful to health. Neither the NSW Government nor Santos have investigated or dealt with the serious health effects of coal seam gas now appearing in peer-reviewed research in the United States, Australia and World Wide.
8. Lack of accountability and compensation from Santos and gas companies if something does go wrong.
9. Dalby and Chinchilla have been effected by CSG, it has impacted negatively on communities through water contamination resulting in health issues, yet another reason why CSG should not continue.
10. Flooding would cause serious harmful effects to animals and humans should waste wash out of the contaminated ponds on gasfields.
11. It is not justified: Santos' own CSG export activities in Queensland have caused gas prices to rise and supply to become unpredictable. NSW government should respond to this by investing in more reliable and ultimately cheaper renewable energy, not by letting Santos inflict more environmental, social and economic harm through GCS.
12. Our farm has been in our family for 4 generations and Santos can risk not only our way of life but also for future generations of farming and agriculture if water is contaminated or our farm value decreases. CSG only has an estimated life span of approximately 20 years.
13. The potential to dry up our bores, drop water levels in our bores making them unusable, cause water contamination and harm the great artesian basin. This will impact our income and farming practices as we rely on underground water for stock and domestic use.
14. We have diverse farming operations on our properties including grain growers and livestock (cattle, sheep and pigs) we are looking to move into free range and RSPCA approved. We are concerned that being in the gasfeild area may impact on our accreditation and if our land or water is contaminated by CSG this will cause great financial distress on our business and the agriculture industry.
I urge the Government to reject this project and make the Great Artesian Basin recharge off-limits to gas mining.

Regards
Christine Cain

Please see attached.

Please see the attached file.

see attached pdf

Name: Upper Mooki Landcare Inc. Executive Committee
Address: "Eastview"
MacDonald's Rd
WILLOW TREE NSW 2339

Date: 22nd May 2017


Attn: Executive Director, Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


RE: Submission to the Santos Narrabri Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Madam / Sir,

We are writing as the Executive Committee of Upper Mooki Landcare Inc. to state that our group objects to this project and recommends that it be rejected on environmental grounds.

A review of Chapter 15 of the Narrabri Gas Project (NGP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was commissioned, and was conducted by Mr David Paull, Principal Ecologist, Ethical Ecology. Mr Paull has extensive experience in conducting environmental reviews and has specialised in the biodiversity of the Pilliga Forest. (see D. Paull, Curriculum Vitae).

Mr Paull found evidence of a number of serious omissions within the Environmental Impact Statement. His report which follows, details his review and presents several concerns regarding the adequacy of the assessment which remain unresolved, in particular:

 The adequacy of the methodology used to describe direct impacts is questionable. The lack of a development footprint by which impact could be measured according to `whole of government' guidelines gives uncertainty to the outcomes.
 Levels of indirect impact on the environment have been significantly under-estimated. Using fox predation as a measure, pre-mitigation levels of indirect impact should be at least doubled in magnitude, based on available evidence.
 Survey effort for some key fauna species is deficient and would have adversely affected the ability of the Environmental Impact Statement to adequately account for some species such as the Regent Honeyeater.
 A NSW and Commonwealth-listed threatened ecological community White Box Blakely's Red Gum-Yellow Box Woodland (and derived native grassland) has been mis-identified and presumed to be not present in the study area. New data from an independent survey confirms its presence along Bohena Creek.
. . . / 2
 The description of important habitat for a number of threatened species, such as the Regent Honeyeater, Pilliga Mouse, Koala, Black-striped Wallaby and Five-clawed Worm-skink does not appear to be accurate.
 New information from three independent surveys on the presence of the Koala in the study area discounts the assertion made in the EIS that it is not currently present.
 Due to deficiencies in the in the survey and assessment for two `matters for further consideration' (Regent Honeyeater and Five-clawed Worm-skink) the statutory requirements under the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy have not been met.
 Direct impacts upon Brigalow Park State Conservation Area remains uncertain as do the magnitude of indirect impacts upon the adjacent Nature Reserve and existing biodiversity corridors.
 A Biodiversity Offset Strategy does provide any surety for how well it will `retire' the impact of the Project because the strategy provided in the EIS does not provide any like-or-like land-based offsets apart from an unproven rehabilitation plan, and rests on the hypothetical efficacy of a feral animal control proposal. The suitability of the offset package with respect to the statutory requirements under the NSW and the Commonwealth's Biodiversity Offset Policies are poor.

Based on these findings, this part of the Project assessment should be rejected as being data-deficient in relation to the Secretary's Requirements, and inadequate under the terms of NSW and Commonwealth Biodiversity Offset Policy. The matters outlined above should be addressed by the proponent before any further assessment is undertaken.

The complete review follows.

Yours sincerely
per Upper Mooki Landcare Inc. Executive Committee




Nicola Chirlian Myles Sevil Heather Ranclaud
Chair Secretary/Treasurer Publicity Officer

submission attached

I object to the proposal to construct an industrial scale gas field in the Pilliga Forest for the reasons set out the accompanying document.

Please find my submission attached

Please find submission document attached

Submission and nine attachments.

Please see my submission attached.