Tamboran Amungee project given green light after climate change appeal rejected by Supreme Court

A gas company is celebrating a ‘vindicating’ victory after a Territory court rejected the threat of ‘unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions’ as a relevant environmental risk for a Beetaloo fracking project.

The Territory’s highest court has dismissed “unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions” and climate change as a relevant risk when approving new fracking projects in the Beetaloo Basin.

On Wednesday, the Territory Chief Justice Michael Grant ruled the threat of climate change was not a relevant consideration in the approval of 12 exploratory wells at Tamboran’s Amungee Delineation Area project, east of Daly Waters.

It comes 10 months after the Central Australian Frack Free Alliance launched its appeal of the November 2022 decision by Environment Minister Lauren Moss which argued she misconstrued the concept of “environmental risks” by failing to include the wider impacts of any future production phase of gas extraction.

No New Gas Coalition members Grusha Leeman, Juanita Kwok, Phil Scott, Reverend L Lee Levett-Olson, Chris Cox, Alice Nagy and Liz Howells outside the Supreme Court in Darwin. Picture: Zizi Averill

The appeal has been seen as a ‘test case’ against fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, which is estimated to contain 500 trillion cubic feet of gas.

The Supreme Court heard the scope of proposed petroleum exploration activities by Tamboran alone would release less than one per cent of the entire Territory’s greenhouse emissions for an entire year — and a “worst-case scenario” fully developed Beetaloo sub-basin would contribute 1.3 per cent of the NT’s total emissions.

However Justice Grant’s 64-page decision ruled there was no jurisdictional error or unreasonableness in Ms Moss’s approval of the drills.

Former Environment, Climate Change and Water Security Minister Lauren Moss. Picture: Contributed

Justice Grant said the “practical and rational operation of the legislative scheme” limited the scope of environmental risks to the actual planned activities — the 12 exploratory drills — and not the “indirect, cumulative and conjunctive causes” of any future approvals.

He said it would be impossible to determine the “risks of hypothetical production activity” which remains in a “state of flux” over the volume, location, quality, recovery methodology and transportation of any gas.

Justice Grant pointed out that “any future production phase activities may never occur and could not lawfully occur unless” the exploratory permits were granted, and if a commercially exploitable deposit of petroleum was uncovered, only then could Tamboran apply for a production permit — which would be subject to another Environment Management Plan (EMP).

A well pad at Tamboran Resources’s near by Shenandoah South Pilot Project in the Beetaloo Basin.

He acknowledged the “well-documented risks of that level of emissions” could have on the environment, however said climate change considerations were not a “statutory precondition to approval of the EMP”.

“It was not possible to conclude that the regulated activity would be a substantial cause of ‘unsustainable’ greenhouse gas emissions or consequential events and circumstances such as bushfires, flooding rainfall and extreme heat,” Justice Grant said.

“It is also impossible to draw any conclusions as to the likely contribution of the regulated activity to any specific increase in global temperature or any extreme weather event, and not possible to characterise those matters as impacts and risks in the sense contemplated and required by the statute.”

CAFFA questioned if the EMP sufficiently assessed the risks of emergencies at the drill site, such as storage tank failures, accidental ignitions of fire from exploration activities, bushfires, the impacts on water hydrology, or the risks of flooding. 

While Justice Grant said there was “no doubt” the EMP could have taken a more detailed approach, he said this was not proof the Minister’s approval was therefore “irrational” or “illogical”.

Anti-fracking protesters held demonstrations outside the Supreme Court appeal hearing in November 2023. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

He also rejected an argument Tamboran’s EMP should not have been approved without being referred to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Agency, saying there was “no obligation” for the environmental watchdog to take action.

Tamboran Resources Corporation said it was a “vindicating” result which affirmed its exploration activities were based on sound evaluation and science and informed by the regulations from the Pepper Inquiry.

“(It) reaffirms the integrity of the NT’s world-class regulations and the quality of Tamboran’s environmental planning and monitoring,” a spokesman said.

But CAFFA spokeswoman Hilary Tyler said the ruling was “disappointing, disturbing and a disaster for our climate” and showed that the legislation was not taking a “common sense approach” to the environmental risk.

Dr Tyler said CAFFA would read the judgment carefully in consultation with its lawyers before deciding next steps.

No New Gas Coalition member Reverend L Lee Levett-Olson outside the Supreme Court in Darwin. Picture: Zizi Averill

No New Gas Coalition spokesman and former Uniting Church Reverend L Lee Levett-Olson said the dismissal was disheartening and opened the door to “one of the most destructive” mining activities.

Originally published as Tamboran Amungee project given green light after climate change appeal rejected by Supreme Court