Media release – The Wilderness Society, 11 June 2021
Seismic Blasting Inquiry: ‘Dresden’-like impacts from an industry and practice passed its use-by-date
The release of a Senate Inquiry report into the use of seismic blasting to locate and drill for oil and gas under the seabed has detailed the opposition of coastal communities, weak regulation, outdated science and has put forward 19 recommendations for reform.
The report, Making waves: the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment, was released by the Senate’s Environment and Communications References Committee yesterday evening.
Jess Lerch, National Corporate Campaigner for the Wilderness Society said, “this report makes it all too clear that for both our marine environments and communities around Australia, seismic blasting offers nothing but serious downsides.
“Last month, the International Energy Agency released its Net Zero by 2050 Report that clearly stated that oil and gas exploration needs to cease this year to secure a safe climate. Seismic testing is the earliest and most speculative phase of offshore fossil fuel exploration, and this Senate Report identifies a litany of risks, burdens and impacts upon coastal communities around the country before, during and after the seismic blasting process.
“We simply shouldn’t have to bear these burdens and costs for fossil fuel companies to speculate for an industry that has passed its use-by-date. The Senate calling for another levy on the industry to seek to address seismic concerns only plasters over the widening cracks of problems that can only be resolved by adhering to the IEA recommendation of ceasing oil and gas exploration in 2021.
“Seismic testing causes fear and loathing in coastal communities. These oil and gas speculators get to impose themselves on communities and local environments like feudal barons. And even when the fishing industry likens the impact of seismic testing on the sea-floor (and therefore their livelihoods) to a WW2 Dresden bombing raid they are ignored.
“Evidence given to the committee by the Head of NOPSEMA’s Environment Division, Mr Cameron Grebe demands attention because it makes it abundantly clear that the independent regulator is not regulating to the standards expected of the community.
CHAIR: It just seems to me throughout the course of this enquiry that the community expectation of what might be unacceptable or what might be environmental harm or serious environmental harm is probably different to the way you apply it in a scientific framework.
Mr Grebe: I think it’s a good point. Put simply, the observation is that people are perhaps seeking no-impact or no-risk combined with no‑uncertainty of those two things to be the hurdle that has to be got over. That simply isn’t the regulatory regime as it’s defined currently, so we can’t deliver on that. If those are people’s expectations, then they won’t be met. I’m sorry, but it won’t be because we’re not doing our job. It’s because that’s the framework of legislation that we have to apply.
“Communities across Australia have lived this inconsistency and would no doubt agree with Mr Grebe that their expectations of government regulators are not being met. It is all too abundantly clear that the government is currently regulating based on the oil and gas industry’s version of “acceptability” rather than the Australian community’s. It’s hard to imagine a more direct indictment of a regulatory system or clearer demonstration of a need for urgent regulatory reform.
“Unless we start regulating this industry to the expectations of the community, the idea of oil and gas holding any sort of social licence to operate is an utter fantasy,” said Ms Lerch.
Graham Hammond, Chair of the Scallop Fishermen’s Association of Tasmania illustrated the impact of seismic testing in Tasmania’s waters in his evidence to the committee, likening its impact on the fishering to a bombing raid:
“[a seismic testing] ship was on a saturation bombing run, a bit like what happened in Dresden, I reckon, during the Second World War … It had the same sort of effect on these scallops.”
“Our communities here in lutruwita/Tasmania are facing these threats right now,” said Tom Allen for the Wilderness Society Tasmania.
“Despite this report’s recommendations, the King Island community is facing the imminent prospect of having its fishery destroyed by the seismic blasting ConocoPhilips intends to conduct off the island. Looking for fossil fuels that the IEA says aren’t needed in a net-zero world lets companies like this profit while communities, including King Island, have to carry the cost.
“This is unacceptable not least because if you asked King Islanders if they want seismic blasting to go ahead in their waters, we are confident there would be a resounding “no!”, said Mr Allen.
Report highlights
The Wilderness Society called for:
“A moratorium on seismic testing until the scientific community are confident that there is a way to mitigate impacts, or an alternative technology is introduced. This view was shared by Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Hunter Community Environment Centre, and two local governments which participated in the inquiry, the Colac Otway Shire Council and King Island Council.”
The Scallop Fishermen’s Association of Tasmania (SFAT):
“The estimated losses amounted to 24,000 tonnes of scallops with a retail value in excess of $70 million, which, SFAT argued, significantly affected fishers, processors and regional economies in Tasmania and Victoria. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania (IMAS) submitted that these events highlighted a lack of evidence concerning the potential impacts of seismic surveying on marine invertebrates and the consequent need to develop that evidence base.”
Peter Morris of The Protect Our Coast Alliance.
“The Save Our Coast team have conducted over 13,000 conversations in the community, held numerous community events, attended collectively by thousands, and received hundreds of media reports. We have evolved into a huge community movement, with 78,000 signatures on petitions, and we’ve received historic bipartisan political support. I reiterate our strong opposition to seismic testing. It’s an inhumane and destructive method of searching for oil or gas that impacts on entire marine ecosystems, with far reaching consequences for communities, marine health, ecosystem health and planetary health.
Simon Boag, South-East Australian Fishing Industry, found that no-one had expected such confronting results, which he argued directly contradict the position of the offshore petroleum industry:
“The previous 10 years have been characterised by oil and gas companies saying that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. We only have one month’s worth of scientific study in front of us, but I think we all agree that even one month’s 99.5 per cent reduction in catch is pretty clear.”
Scallop Fishermen’s Association of Tasmania (SFAT) referenced Beach Energy Limited’s (Beach Energy) 2020 proposal to conduct a 3D seismic survey in the Bass Basin offshore Tasmania and Victoria, which SFAT stated is close to lucrative fishing grounds near King Island. Long-serving member of SFAT Jonathan Hammond argued that Beach Energy commissioned its “own independent science companies to give them modelling … as to all the reasons why [the proposed survey] won’t kill the scallops”, while disregarding the findings of the FRDC research project:
“The FRDC project [is] generally accepted worldwide [as] the benchmark…of the research into the damage that seismic testing does to rock lobster, scallops, all of those sorts of things; however, Beach Energy don’t mention any of that in their consultation. They’ve just gone and got some fresh modelling done and, provided that NOPSEMA approves that, they’re free to go and get on with the job.
Julianne Arnold, Mayor of King Island Council, remarked that acreage release can significantly affect local economies and communities, even if a titleholder does not proceed with a seismic survey. Mrs Arnold identified poor consultation and the absence of environmental assessment at this regulatory stage as the main concerns for the Council:
“The … concern we have with areas being released is the lack of consultation with the people who are already fishing those areas and the communities which abut those areas… Even though those areas may not become actual oil and gas exploration areas, the fact that they are released—because the oil industry would like them to be released— immediately impacts tourism, and the fact that environmental assessments are not made prior to them being released means that we then get to the process of seismic testing with no agreed decision on the impact of that seismic testing.18 4.19 Mayor Arnold suggested that there should be stronger consultation requirements in the annual acreage release process: It shouldn’t be that I happen to come across something on the internet when I’m researching something else. If they are looking at opening another five areas that are impacting King Island that are over and above what’s already there, another five areas that will impact the Otway coast, it shouldn’t be up to us to find those. They know who uses those fisheries— there are licences and all sorts of information. They should have to, as part of the process, send a letter to every one of those people. They should have to send a communication to every council or community that abuts those fisheries and tell them what is planned, prior to looking to release areas.
Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) remarked that the commercial fishing industry is subject to a much higher standard than the offshore petroleum industry. Australian Marine Conservation Society representative Mr Adrian Meder commented similarly:
“The fishing industry … is subject to a substantial range of very science based, precautionary measures that require them to protect the marine environment they operate in to a much higher level than ‘as low as reasonably practicable’. To give an example: for a fishery off South Australia, if an Australian sea lion is caught in a net, a large zone of that fishery will be closed for 18 months. They are very explicit and very tight controls. There’s no such control on the seismic industry and, likewise, there isn’t the extent of management and monitoring for integration with the other industries and other cumulative impacts that may be occurring. That’s a really unusual double standard. While ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ sounds good and is marketed as a big level of effort from industry, it actually falls far short of what other industries are expected to do as part of their normal operations.
The Wilderness Society representative Ms Jody Williams stated unequivocally that ‘there should not be approval of surveys where scientific uncertainties exist’. TSIC, SIV and the Victorian Rock Lobster Association agreed, with the latter organisation submitting that ‘we should be proceeding with caution and not allowing a lack of knowledge to be the excuse for continued use of what we know is a lethal tool’
Northern Territory Seafood Council: its members view regulatory consultation as a waste of time and resources:
“Consultation is now viewed not as a means to find a middle ground, rather a mechanism that wastes both time and resources for an outcome (that being a seismic survey) that will occur regardless of concerns or issues raised.34 5.44 The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association submitted that the failure to genuinely engage with the commercial fishing industry results in NOPSEMA receiving and accepting EPs that do not fully appreciate or address fishers’ concerns.”
Hunter Community Environment Centre summarised that
“there is no social licence or public support for seismic testing or an offshore extraction industry in the [Hunter and Newcastle] region”
Peninsula Environment Group expressly asked the committee to recognise:
“The significant opposition to seismic testing in the local community as demonstrated by the ‘Hands across the sands’ community gathering at Umina beach [south of Gosford] attended by more than a thousand people in May 2019 as well as the Save Our Coast petition which currently has over 50,000 signatures.55 5.76 Surfrider Foundation Australia similarly stated: Public opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of Australians oppose drilling activities and seismic testing. Off-shore drilling activities are a risky business, putting profits to international entities above local jobs, tourism, health and environment. It provokes a loss of local control. Australians consider the coastline as our recreational playground, and the health and well-being component of our nation has a greater value, than any short term fossil fuel gains.
