Doctors say regulator engaged in “box ticking” exercise with Scarborough gas approval

The offshore oil and gas regulator engaged in a “box ticking” exercise when it waved through Woodside’s environmental approval on its $16.5bn Scarborough gas project, a new legal action claims.

Doctors for the Environment Australia filed in federal court last Wednesday to challenge a decision by the National offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to grant environmental approval to Woodside.

The group is seeking a judicial review over the regulator’s decision to accept the Offshore Facility and Trunkline (Operations) Environment Plant.

At the core of the claim is the regulator’s decision to accept an assertion by Woodside that gas produced from Scarborough would displace dirtier fossil fuels elsewhere.

DEA Executive Director Dr Kate Wylie said Woodside’s said her organisation was now “asking for a second opinion” on that decision.

“The thing that really jumps out for us is this claim that offshore gas will displace more carbon intensive forms of energy when we have Woodside itself saying it cannot prove that claim,” Dr Wylie said.

“This is a test case for how NOPSEMA will assess greenhouse emissions going forward and whether it can embrace a false narrative that an expansion of gas in Australia will reduce emission elsewhere.”

NOPSEMA said it was aware the application had been filed but that “it is not appropriate for NOPSEMA to comment on matters subject to court proceedings.”

Woodside CEO Meg O’Neill conceded in early April during a sustainability briefing that there was no way to prove the claim that the gas it produces displaced coal use elsewhere.

“Trying to definitively prove that our cargo of LNG displaced coal that would have otherwise been burned is a very difficult strategy,” she said.

A 2019 CSIRO report commissioned, and later buried, by Woodside found that exporting gas to Asia worked to displace renewables, not coal.

Another 2024 LNG Export Study published by the US Department of Energy – that remains on the departmental website at the time of writing – concluded similarly that more gas would displace renewables rather than coal.

It found that for any reduction in coal use, the corresponding fall in renewable energy would be nearly double. Modelling work found that in scenarios where the US increased its gas production, coal consumption decreased by 13% and renewable energy production decreased by 25%.

Wylie said the group was seeking to check the regulator’s work because “as doctors, it is our duty to protect our communities.”

“What do we know about gas? We know gas is a potent greenhouse gas,” Wylie said. “We know that last year was the hottest year in recorded history. We know our planet is getting hotter. If we are going to reach our goals under the Paris climate target, all the world bodies are telling us that we can’t add further emission to the atmosphere.”

“We’re concerned we have the government regulator ticking a box on an environmental plan for a very large company. We’re the ones holding them to account and we feel compelled to do so.”

Want the latest clean energy news delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to our free daily newsletter.