While activists paint today's court battle in Sydney's Land and Environment Court about chasing one of New South Wales' last CSG players out of the state, it really comes down to semantics - and the decision may not go their way.

Narrabri community group People for the Plains has taken the NSW government to court believing that Santos' holding pond facility should have been approved via planning legislation instead of mining legislation because it is a water treatment facility.

However, the water treatment facility wouldn't be needed without the ‘mining' operation, and so the counter argument says that is why it was linked to the mining legislation.

Even if the court ends up deciding the planning approvals should have been used, all the relevant departments have already approved the safety and sustainability of the project.

The case was adjourned on April 6 after the legal teams for all parties, including those on behalf of the NSW government, requested time for further consideration for new information and to amended pleadings.

This new information included the fact that a new Petroleum Operations Plan that the NSW government granted to Santos in December included the Leewood industrial complex.

People for the Plains argues that Santos must still obtain a development consent because the intensity and scale of the industrial development is not something that can simply be classified as CSG exploration.

People for the Plains' Rohan Bohem said the Baird government allowed the project to be approved without public participation or scrutiny and without a full and thorough environmental impact statement.

And the group is also concerned that even if they do win the case the government may change the laws to suit the company.

"We have seen this happen time and time again where local residents win a legal battle to stop an inappropriate development only to have the government or parliament change the rules," Bohem said.

"This happened for the community in Bulga, whose town faces decimation from an open cut Rio Tinto coal mine, and it could also happen to Narrabri."

People for the Plains says that if they're successful, Santos would be forced to prepare a full EIS, which would be made available to the public, slowing development and allowing greater transparency for the development in the Pilliga State Forest.

The Wilderness Society's Naomi Hodgson said Santos had taken a "huge risk" continuing construction of the facility in the face of a significant legal challenge, indicating activists' hopes that the Adelaide-based oiler would simply run away with its tail between its legs.

However, Santos chairman Peter Coates said at the recent AGM that the company would not be "bullied" out of the Pilliga.

"Continuing construction at the Leewood site flies in the face of Santos's statement to shareholders that the Narrabri gas project is on the go-slow after its value was written down to zero and gas reserves downgraded, yet they keep putting our water and soil at risk," Hodgson said.

"Should People for the Plains be successful we will be requesting that Santos take down their illegal waste water treatment plant. If you've built a shed without development consent council would make you pull it down, so why wouldn't the government request Santos do the same?"

Santos confident

Santos' NSW general manager of energy Peter Mitchley told Energy News that Leewood Phase 2 was approved after a "rigorous and detailed process which was carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory guidelines".

"The process included public consultation and submissions were received and taken into account in making the approval assessment," he said.

"We worked through a number of government departments. All of the different government departments were satisfied with the sustainability and safety of the plant.

"The reverse osmosis plant is similar to those used across the world and will be used to treat salty ground water produced by Santos' exploration and appraisal operations to a very high standard so it can be used for irrigation and operational activities.

"The activity is of low environmental risk."