Woodside has been temporarily blocked from moving ahead with part of a major gas project off WA’s northern coast.
Key points:
- Earlier this year Woodside was given approval for the seismic testing
- But it is now being challenged by the Environmental Defenders Office
- A temporary block is in place until a further hearing later in September
The company was in July given approval to carry out seismic testing, which involves releasing powerful blasts of air towards the ocean floor to search for gas, for its Scarborough project.
Scientists have warned seismic blasting can have subtle but critical effects on marine life, like depleting feeding areas for whales.
That approval is being challenged by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) which brought a case on behalf of Mardudhunera woman Raelene Cooper.
She is claiming Woodside did not properly consult with her and other traditional owners before it was given approval to carry out the testing by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA).
The testing had initially been due to begin last week however after the case was lodged in the Federal Court, the company agreed to delay the work.
Today’s hearing — which was marred by technical difficulties — was to decide whether the testing could be carried out before a full trial of the issues in late October.
Federal Court Judge Craig Colvin today said there were “real consequences” for Ms Cooper and her community which need to be considered which were “not amenable to financial measure” or compensation.
He ruled that Woodside would be blocked from carrying out the testing until a further hearing in the last week of September.
Serious concerns about Indigenous consultation
The EDO’s lawyer, Laura Hilly, told the court Ms Cooper was not asking for the seismic testing to never take place, but for Woodside to consult with her before it happened to understand the risks it posed, including to the environment and the culture she was charged with safeguarding as an elder.
She said while the company was arguing its environmental plan addressed Ms Cooper’s concerns, that could not be the case because “Woodside does not yet know” what those concerns are.
Dr Hilly pointed to affidavits from two Woodside employees who acknowledged they had not been aware of some of the points Ms Cooper was raising until they read documents filed by her legal team, which she described as “hardly surprising”.
Accepting some additional consultation had taken place since the plan had been approved, Dr Hilly said there were still “significant and serious concerns” Ms Cooper wanted to raise with Woodside in a “culturally appropriate” way.
That included songlines, culture and community impacts which could have “spiritual, health and wellbeing” impacts for her, her family and broader community.
Dr Hilly and said the court was having to balance those risks against the potential financial impact to Woodside.
She described as a “fallacy” an argument advanced by Woodside that it had already reduced the risks of the seismic testing as much as possible, and that the EDO’s requests amounted to demands greater than what the law provided for.
Dr Hilly also rejected suggestions any financial loss incurred by delays to the seismic testing were an issue her client should be concerned with, saying “much, if not most” of those costs arose from “commercial choices” made by Woodside, including signing contracts before it received approval for some plans.
Significant cost in delaying work
In response, Woodside’s lawyer Stephen Penglis told Justice Colvin the EDO had “not come to grips with” the significant financial cost to Woodside of delaying the testing.
He said there were 81 people on four vessels “not knowing what’s happening” while the case was being heard.
While the exact cost to Woodside was kept confidential, Mr Penglis told Justice Colvin to look at various figures in contracts he had before them, including the daily stand-by rate for the contractor who would be undertaking the testing.
He said multiplying those rates out by the five-and-a-half weeks until the trial results in “a large number” which would have a “major financial consequence” for Woodside, which the EDO would not compensate the company for if it ultimately lost the case.
Mr Penglis said he was not “ignoring” the interests of Ms Cooper, but that even if her case was successful the ultimate effect was to delay Woodside’s activity, not prevent them.
On Woodside’s behalf, he questioned why Ms Cooper had only made the company aware of certain concerns in affidavits, rather than in meetings she’d had with representatives and insisted the company had given her ample opportunity to raise her concerns.
He said even if other concerns remained, they could be raised and their impact considered by both Woodside and the independent regulator through a “robust” process, leaving the balance of convenience leaning towards allowing the seismic blasting to begin.
In response the EDO argued that because Woodside had not properly consulted Ms Cooper before the plan was approved, any consultation after the fact would not resolve those issues.