Oil drilling in the Bight will signal an unsustainable future for humanity

The deeply concerning news on emissions from the UN Climate Summit, the IPCC report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and the emerging international image of the Australian government as “denialist” might be the opportunity for Australia to stop oil development in the Great Australian Bight.

The background to the dangers of drilling for oil in the Bight was explained in a previous article just before the 2019 federal election

Approval for drilling has now moved forward with Chief Scientist Professor Alan Finkel’s Independent Audit of NOPSEMA’s consideration of exploration in the Great Australian Bight

The Audit was requested pre-election by the Federal Government in response to community concerns. The Terms of Reference  did not include “whether Australia should have an oil and gas industry, the merits or otherwise of petroleum activity occurring within the Great Australian Bight, NOPSEMA’s legislative and regulatory framework and the merits of administrative decisions made by NOPSEMA”.

In effect these restrictions remove from consideration of many crucial international and natonal issues such as climate change due to greenhouse emissions, and the functioning of the archaic, restrictive regulatory processes of NOPSEMA.

As would be expected from a Chief Scientist, the audit is impeccable and authoritative, but as expected its 80 pages do not venture to include the words climate change or any reference to the impact of successful development on domestic or world greenhouse emissions.

In his letter to the Ministers concerned Professor Finkel says: “I have found that the regulator’s processes and guidelines appropriately take into account all environmental risks and impacts as required under the regulations.Importantly, through the audit, I have found that NOPSEMA’s practices properly and fully implement its processes and guidelines”.

Many would conclude that the longstanding NOPSEMA practices remain as they are to fulfil the needs of Australian governments to prioritise jobs and growth as illustrated by Greta Thunberg’s angry words at the UN meeting.

“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

These words are justified in the context of the decades of inaction on climate change for even today for many countries fail to accept responsibility.

Oil development in the Bight would not be in keeping with the recent IPCC report  which stresses the need for rapid phase out of fossil fuels nor with the urgency of the situation as revealed in the UN conference.

An oil spill or blow out in the Bight would cause long term harm tocurrent sustainable employment,fisheries, aquaculture, and to tourism, and would compound projected impacts of increasing climate change on the fragile ecosystems of the Bight. There is no social licence to proceed.

NOPSEMA is responsible for health and safety of workers involved in oil operations in Commonwealth and coastal waters. “2.1.3. All associated risks to healthand safety and the marine environment are managed to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and environmental risks must be managed”.

The NOPSEMA regulations do not address the health of community and this issue is not covered in the Audit.

These impacts were explained in a submission to NOPSEMA from Doctors for the Environment Australia and have been summarised in a Fact Sheet available to government and communities.

Should a spill occur the impacts on individual and community health are devastating and long-lasting. It must be asked why take this risk? Quite simply because the benefits perceived by government (jobs and growth) as evidenced under the restrictive assessment are greater than the potential harms.

The community should also be concerned about their chances of legal restitution in the event of disaster.

In 2016 a comprehensive study examined laws relating to civil and criminal penalties, liability for clean-up/removal costs, and civil claims made by individuals and entities against an offshore oil company, that may apply in the event of a pollution incident in the Great Australian Bight.

It was concluded “the law is complex, ambiguous in places and, in particular, provides uncertain and limited rights of recovery for pure economic loss”. The authors recommended that the Australian Parliament conduct a debate on the right to recovery for pure economic loss

suffered as a result of oil pollution from an offshore well blowout, as part of a far broader enquiry as to whether Parliament should enact a statutory scheme of liability and compensation”. This has not occurred.

The battle to control the economic shibboleth threatening the Earth and humanity in progress at the UN meeting is reflected in the Great Australian Bight where development solely for economic gain is pursued by a wealthy developed country.

There are still some options to prevent this development.

The current developer Equinor, a Norwegian owned company, is increasing its investment in Australian renewable energy.

Presumably it changed its name from Statoil because it preferred to be an energy company rather than an oil company. It is counterintuitive that it now promotes oil development in difficult foreign waters – the Bight.

Equinor will also be aware of the Norwegian Sovereign Fund’s decision to divest from fossil fuels and of Australian community representations by Wilderness Society members visiting Norway to address Norwegian Parliamentarians.

A decision by Equinor to abandon drilling could become a turning point for industry to collectively acknowledge the need for sustainability in a fragile Bight to be prioritised.

As explained in the Harvard Business Review, the awareness of many CEOs to their social responsibilities is increasing rapidly with their acknowledgement of the climate emergency. Equinor could be pressured by large company players.

The health consequences are also a pressure point. Doctors for the Environment Australiahas written detailing its health concerns to the Norwegian government and to the leaders of their political parties and is in contact with the Norwegian Medical Association asking for them to make representations to their government.

Finally though we despair of the ability of most governments to address the future of humanity there are some emerging examples of climate diplomacy through tradenegotiations- and hopefully these will be employed in trade deals which Australia covets.

For the government to stop drilling in the Bight would require logic, understanding and judgement. As Mr Morrison’s mate often says “Let’s see what happens!”

Dr. David Shearman AM FRACP is a founder of Doctors for the Environment Australia and emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Adelaide.