Woodside’s $17 billion Scarborough gas project faces heritage hurdle

A WA government-backed study is yet to determine if the rock engravings are safe from industrial emissions. The women want Federal environmental legislation’s precautionary principle – that a lack of scientific certainty should not delay protection of the environment – to be applied.

To put their case Woodside must regard them as “relevant persons” that by law must be consulted.

A Woodside spokeswoman said it recognised Indigenous people had the right to participate through representative bodies, in this case the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation.

“Consultation with self-appointed individuals who do not align with these bodies risks undermining the institutions,” she said.

However, the act that governs NOPSEMA defines both “a person or organisation” who may be affected, as relevant persons to be consulted.

“Woodside’s characterisation of MAC as being the only legitimate representative …misrepresents this organisation and its members in order to provide an illusion of social licence for further destructive industrial activity,” Cooper said.

“As a former chairperson of MAC, I have seen for more than a decade how it is co-opted, conflicted and sidelined by industry.”

In May 27 members of MAC, including some from the Murujuga Circle of Elders that provide cultural guidance, in an open letter said Woodside’s gas developments had already damaged many sacred sites and ancient rock carvings and Scarborough would continue the injustice.

More than 4000 rock engravings were destroyed when Woodside built its original North West Shelf gas plant in the 1970’s. Woodside chair Richard Goyder was unaware of the destruction when asked by Alec at the company’s annual general meeting in May.

Woodside decides who it consults before submitting an environment plan, but it must satisfy the regulator that its consultation was appropriate.

The stakes are high as Woodside has likely already committed billions of dollars to Scarborough, but without NOPSEMA’s approval, the project cannot proceed.

Emissions permission still to some

Woodside’s Scarborough also faces an assessment of their Scope 3 emissions from the processing of gas onshore and the burning of the gas by customers when they each submit the final environment plan to allow production to commence.

Both projects have preliminary Offshore Project Proposals accepted by NOPSEMA. Woodside estimated Scarborough’s lifetime Scope 3 emissions will be 866 million tonnes – equal to 18 months of emissions from all of Australia.

The NOPSEMA spokesman said the plans had to show a higher level of risk reduction than the earlier proposals, and it would consider any new information when making its assessment.

Since NOPSEMA accepted the Scarborough proposal in February 2020 the International Energy Agency has called for no new fossil fuel projects for global warming to be contained to 1.5 degrees.

Loading

In 2020, Woodside argued gas from Scarborough would cut the use of more polluting coal, reducing global emissions. A CSIRO report commissioned by Woodside released after a freedom of information request has undermined this argument. It found more gas could slow the uptake of renewable energy and increase emissions unless there was a global carbon price.

Woodside’s 2020 document also referenced a federal government analysis that Australia could meet its then targeted 26 to 28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 with planned growth, including the Scarborough project. The 2030 target is now 43 per cent under the new Labor government.

There was a clear sign that gas producers may be concerned about NOPSEMA looking at their Scope 3 emissions when industry-friendly Coalition resources minister Keith Pitt told the regulator he expected it to ignore them.

A spokesman for Pitt’s successor Madeleine King said she would set out her own expectations of NOPSEMA in due course.

“NOPSEMA is responsible for exercising its powers consistent with the legislation…based on the material evidence and facts with which it is presented,” she said.

King was asked if she would also request that NOPSEMA ignore Scope 3 emissions and did not provide a response.

Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation did not respond to queries.