Santos was always serious about reducing its emissions, says the now head of Beach Energy

In a case challenging the veracity of Santos’ CO2 emissions reduction, the Federal Court has heard testimony from a former boss who says the company’s commitment is genuine.

Santos was determined to reduce emissions and that intent was reinforced by senior executives, a former senior figure and now chief executive of Beach Energy has told a court.

The Federal Court on Tuesday heard evidence that Santos’s former head of sustainability expressed concern that the company had a prevailing attitude of indifference towards curtailing CO2 emissions.

Beach Energy’s Brett Woods was the first witness called in the Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility’s case against Santos.

The ACCR case, brought in 2021 and considered to be one of the first globally to legally test the veracity of a company’s net-zero emissions target, comes as Santos seeks to spur growth in earnings and its share price.

Santos denies claims made by ACCR that its 2021 commitment to reduce emissions amounted to greenwashing and that it had no credible path to achieve its publicly declared commitment.

Under activist pressure, in 2021 the company said gas was a clean energy source before later declaring that it would reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040.

Beach Energy chief Brett Woods when he was with Santos.

Mr Woods was called as a witness and was questioned by ACCR barrister Noel Huntley about the culture of Santos. Mr Huntley presented into evidence an email from former head of sustainability Alicia Genet which he said revealed concerns about the commitment to reduce emissions as it embarked on sustained production growth.

Mr Huntley said the apparent lack of urgency in response to the Ms Genet’s email to her superior was reflective of Santos’ attitude.

“That was the culture of Santos, I suggest to you, regarding questions of emission reductions,” Mr Huntley said.

But Mr Woods, a former member of the executive committee at Santos until he departed in late 2022, said he had not seen that email and it had not specifically been discussed by the company’s most senior officials in any of its regular meetings.

However. that was neither unexpected nor reflective of the company’s attitude towards curtailing emissions.

“The comments from Ms Genet didn’t specifically come but the importance of emission reductions was foremost in the executive committee’s mind,” Mr Woods told the court.

The exchange came during two hours of testimony from Mr Woods and he will assume on Wednesday.

The ACCR has asked the Federal Court to rule that Santos “misled” the market and for it to grant an injunction preventing the company from doing so again. The ACCR has also asked the court to force Santos to “correct” its statement.

Outlining its defence, barrister Neil Young for Santos said it was widely known that natural gas emitted substances but it was comparatively free of pollutants compared with coal which the fuel source was displacing.

While the outcome of the case would immediately impact Santos, legal officials have said it would have widespread consequences.

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of LNG, a fuel source that developers insist will displace coal and lower the emissions of CO2. But these companies are increasingly in the crosshairs of opponents of all fossil fuels.

Hearings are expected to last for two weeks before closing arguments in mid November.

This is the second significant court action Santos has had to defend against this year.

In early 2024, a Federal Court Justice rejected a claim by Tiwi Islander Simon Munkara, who had sought an injunction against the gas giant’s plan to develop a 262km pipeline for its $5.7bn Barossa LNG development in waters off the Northern Territory.

It had been claimed the pipe would ­irreparably damage cultural associations with the sea.

Originally published as Santos was always serious about reducing its emissions, says the now head of Beach Energy