The Federal Court has dismissed a not-for-profit organisation’s bid to overturn an approval of Woodside’s environmental plan over its $18.7 billion Scarborough asset.
Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) sued the National Offshore Petroleum Safety And Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) in the Federal Court of Australia, over its environmental plan relating to the Scarborough gas asset.
In his decision today, Federal Court Judge Shaun McElwaine dismissed DEA’s application for a judicial review of Nopsema’s approval.
DEA claimed NOPSEMA should not have been satisfied with Woodside Energy’s environmental plan over its Scarborough activities nor accept the oil and gas giant’s application in February.
The organisation claimed Woodside’s environmental plan did not address long-term release of greenhouse gas emissions, controls and mitigation steps.
“On proper construction, it was open to NOPSEMA to accept the environmental plan as meeting the environmental plan acceptance criteria,” judge McElwaine said in court.
“I have concluded that it was not a mandatory requirement of the regulatory scheme for the title holder to specify an acceptable level of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.”
In court, Judge McElwaine said an acceptable level of impact and risk from the emissions was not mandated.
"In my view, DEA incorrectly commences the construction task by focusing on the reference to an acceptable level of impact and risk within the definition of environmental performance outcome," he said.
"As I explain, the regulatory scheme is interdependent, consisting of multiple components where what is an acceptable level of impact and risk is one outcome of a hierarchical evaluative assessment, of which there are multiple moving parts.
"I am unable to accept the [DEA's] submission. The argument focuses too heavily on the definitions of control measure, environmental performance outcome and environmental performance standard."
Outside court, Woodside welcomed the court’s decision to confirm the validity of NOPSEMA’s acceptance of its environmental plan.
Woodside chief executive Meg O'Neill said the outcome reinforced confidence in progressing the Scarborough energy project, estimated to cost $US12 billion ($A18.7 billion).
“The project is expected to contribute more than A$50 billion in direct and indirect taxes to Australia’s economy,” she said.
“Scarborough is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets, providing reliable energy to the region while also supporting local energy security through critical domestic gas supply.”
According to Woodside, the environmental plan was the final federal approval needed for the company to connect, commission and operate the Scarborough floating production unit off the Western Australian coast.
In a statement released after the decision, DEA said it would review the judgment with its lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office and assess its options.
DEA executive director Kate Wylie said the decision showed that it was clear Australia’s offshore gas regulations were not living up to the broader public interest.
“The offshore gas industry in Australia is one of the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, so the Australian community should be able to expect the government to regulate those impacts seriously,” she said.
“The government’s decision to approve this environment plan appears to fly in the face of that commonsense expectation.
“Doctors are responding to emergencies such as heatwaves, floods, bushfires and storms. The toll is not just on physical health—but also on mental health.
“In these circumstances, the least our governments can do is to ensure such projects are subjected to thorough scrutiny to ensure proposals address climate impacts in a meaningful way.”
The Scarborough project is the second Woodside asset entangled in court proceedings today, after Friends of Australian Rock Art appeared in the Supreme Court of Western Australia to contest the state government approval of the North West Shelf extension.
FARA seeks judicial review against the state Environment Minister Matthew Swinbourn and Woodside, challenging the state government's environmental approval to extend the North West Shelf operation until 2070.
The matter has been adjourned to October 21.
