Will Australia reject a proposal to drill beneath a coral reef?

(By Samantha Hepburn)

For decades, Woodside, Australia’s largest independent oil and gas company, has had its eye on one target: the country’s largest known unconventional gas fields.

But there is a problem. The huge Brecknock, Calliance and Torosa gas fields lie hundreds of kilometers off the coast of Western Australia – hidden under pristine coral reefs. To access the deposits, the company would have to drill more than 50 wells around the Scott Reef system and pipe the gas 900 kilometers across the seabed to a processing plant.

Now Woodside has an even bigger problem. The state’s environmental protection authority has signalled it will reject this A$30 billion project called Browse, which is part of Woodside’s much larger Burrup Hub project.

It would be unusual for the state agency to reject a project of this magnitude – they are usually only approved with conditions. But the agency is clearly concerned about the potential damage the huge gas project could cause. The project is mired in controversy, with 800 public appeals and more than 400,000 signatures on a petition against it. Environmentalists are delighted at the news of the rejection.

Has this project been stopped by Australia’s homegrown answer to the oil industry? Not quite. The agency has only made a provisional decision. Woodside has promised to keep pushing for the green light – and has the support of federal Resources Minister Madeleine King.

However, because these reefs lie on a key migration route for endangered pygmy blue whales, U.S. Environmental Secretary Tanya Plibersek may need to intervene.

What happens next will tell us a lot about who is in charge within the Albanese government.

How big is this project?

If approved, the Browse project would feed gas into Woodside’s planned Burrup Hub, the company’s gas mega-project that would become one of Australia’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing centres. Environmentalists have described Burrup as a “climate bomb” that would produce twice as many emissions as any other fossil fuel project seeking approval.

Browse gas has a high carbon dioxide content (12% CO2) and gas extraction often releases methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas. Last year, Shell left the joint venture due to profitability and carbon emissions concerns.

But greenhouse gas emissions are not normally the responsibility of an environmental agency. The Western Australian agency has reportedly opposed the Browse project on conservation grounds. A request for information from the Nine newspapers resulted in a letter the agency sent to Woodside in February advising that the project was “unacceptable” due to the likely impacts on Scott Reef.

The concerns are well founded. The project would threaten the habitat or migration routes of endangered species such as pygmy blue whales, manta rays, whale sharks and nesting green sea turtles. Flaring the gas would disorient migratory birds and young turtle hatchlings.

Noise pollution from drilling, pile driving and other infrastructure projects would cause stress and affect the habitat. Chemical pollutants such as drilling fluid and treated wastewater would enter the water.

High-speed transport boats could endanger whale migration routes. There is also the risk of an oil spill, which, if this were to happen, would have devastating consequences for marine life.

There is a potential for gas exploration to flood Sandy Islet, the only part of Scott Reef above high water, threatening to destroy a popular nesting site for green sea turtles.

In the public interest?

Woodside argues that exploiting these huge gas fields is necessary to avoid a predicted gas shortage in Western Australia – and to strengthen energy security in Asia.

But the state is not short of gas. Even if it were, WA has a domestic reserve policy that requires LNG producers to reserve 15% for the domestic market. Given that a recent WA parliamentary inquiry found that major gas companies currently reserve just 8% of the state’s gas, it would be far easier to enforce the current reserve policy than to tap new gas beneath a coral reef.

What’s next?

A final decision from the state environmental protection agency is still pending. But even if the decision is a clear no, it is hard to imagine the company giving up.

In this case, Plibersek would likely have to speak out. Her job is to make decisions on national environmental issues under Australia’s core environmental laws.

These laws do not take into account the damage caused by emissions, so Plibersek could not reject Woodside’s proposal on climate grounds. However, the law does cover the protection of endangered species, migratory species and the marine environment.

The critically endangered pygmy blue whale is found in the waters of Western Australia, including Scott Reef. Under Australian conservation law, “critically endangered” means that the species’ population has declined significantly, falling by at least 50% over ten years or three generations.

Plibersek may stop the Browse project because of its impact on the pygmy blue whale, as a biodiversity restoration plan already exists for that species.

If a recovery plan is in place, our laws say the federal minister cannot approve a project that is inconsistent or contrary to the plan. But the whale recovery plan expires next year.

Samantha Hepburn is a Professor at Deakin Law School, Deakin University. This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and can be found in full here.