Chapter 1

Introduction and context

Referral and terms of reference

1.1
On 16 September 2019, the Senate referred the following matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee (committee) for inquiry and report by 14 May 2020:
The impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment, with particular reference to:
(a) the body of science and research into the use of seismic testing;
(b) the regulation of seismic testing in both Commonwealth and state waters;
(c) the approach taken to seismic testing internationally; and
(d) any other related matters.1
1.2
On 26 March 2020, 11 December 2020, 9 February 2021 and 21 May 2021, the reporting date was extended, with the committee ultimately due to present its report by 10 June 2021.2

Conduct of the inquiry

1.3
In accordance with its usual practice, the committee advertised the inquiry on its website and wrote to individuals and organisations inviting submissions by 21 November 2019. The committee subsequently extended the closing date for submissions to 16 December 2019 but continued to accept submissions received after this date.
1.4
The committee received 84 submissions, which are listed at Appendix 1, approximately 480 copies of form letters (with variations) and nearly 8000 short statements (of approximately 200 words or less).3
1.5
The committee held five public hearings: in Hobart on 19 February 2020 and in Canberra on 12 August 2020, 21 and 22 September 2020, and 18 March 2021. The first three of the Canberra hearings focussed on Victorian, Western Australian and South Australian-based evidence, with witnesses unable to travel due to precautionary measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. A list of witnesses who participated in the hearings is at Appendix 2.
1.6
The public submissions, additional information, Hansard transcripts and tabled documents are available on the committee's website at www.aph.gov.au/senate_ec.

Acknowledgement

1.7
The committee would like to thank all of the individuals and organisations who contributed to the inquiry.

Note on references

1.8
In this report, references to the Hansard transcript are to the proof (that is, uncorrected) transcript. Page numbers may vary between the proof and official Hansard transcripts.

Structure of the report

1.9
This report comprises six chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and context to the inquiry;
Chapter 2 discusses the existing body of science and research;
Chapter 3 outlines challenges and options for future research;
Chapter 4 sets out the regulatory framework for offshore seismic surveying;
Chapter 5 discusses the regulator's assessment and approval processes; and
Chapter 6 focuses on international approaches to seismic surveying.

Context to the inquiry

1.10
Australia's marine environment is diverse and unique:
Australia's marine environment is home to 4000 fish species, 500 coral species in the northern reefs alone, 50 types of marine mammal and a wide range of seabirds. It is estimated that as many as 80 per cent of marine species found in southern Australian waters occur nowhere else.4
1.11
The Great Australian Bight Marine Park, for example, is located offshore South Australia and is renowned for its distinctive natural values—that is, the habitats, species and ecological communities within them, and the processes that support their connectivity, productivity and function:
[The] Great Australian Bight Marine Park includes part of the world's largest known temperate carbonate platform, and protects unique soft sediment ecosystems that are considered globally significant for their diversity of sponges, ascidians and bryozoans. The marine park is also famous for its southern right whales, which aggregate in the region for calving each year.5
1.12
Within this unique natural environment, the Australian Government supports offshore oil and gas (petroleum) exploration, including seismic surveying, with a policy framework designed to:
expand Australia's resource base;
increase the international competitiveness of the resources sector; and
maintain a leading-practice regulatory regime.6
1.13
In Australia, offshore petroleum exploration supports a multi-billion dollar industry. The peak national body for exploration companies—the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA)—quantified the industry's economic contribution as follows:
The oil and gas industry supports 80,000 jobs directly and indirectly in Australia and hundreds of thousands more in the manufacturing industry. Additionally, [Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)] exports totalled $50 billion in 2018-19 and tax payments are estimated at $4.6 billion in 2016-17. These results highlight the enormous investments made by the industry over the past decade totalling more than $350 billion and the significant returns to the community.7
1.14
On account of this economic contribution, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) submitted that 'it is important that Australia continues to identify areas that are geologically prospective for oil and gas'.8
1.15
National Energy Resources Australia (NERA) pointed out that petroleum exploration is also critical to future energy production and security. Its submission noted the increasing global demand for energy, including on the domestic market, demand which it argued cannot be met by renewable energies alone:
Global economies are rapidly scaling renewable and other energy sources with a low carbon footprint, and these are becoming increasingly competitive with existing sources … [However] there is a broad consensus within the energy industry that the expected increase in global energy demand by 2050 cannot be met with today's renewable technologies alone and that fossil fuels will continue to play a key role in the energy mix.9
1.16
In contrast, many submitters and witnesses supported the further development of sustainable energy policies, rather than a continued reliance on fossil fuels. Surfrider Foundation Australia submitted, for example:
We must look toward sustainable solutions that protect our natural resources, rather than drill for fossil fuels off our coasts. It is in the best interest of our environment and economy to develop a sustainable ‘energy portfolio’ that includes renewable sources and conservation.10
1.17
Others added that climate change scientists have cautioned for decades against the continued use of fossil fuels, which increase greenhouse gas emissions and drive global warming. For example, the Environmental Defenders Office submitted:
Australia's climate has warmed by just over one degree Celsius (°C) since 1910 and average temperatures are projected to rise further. Impacts that are the result of a changing climate are already occurring. For marine species, these include the warming and acidification of oceans, sea level rise, and an increase in extreme weather events. This in turn impacts both fisheries and the broader marine environment. In light of the unequivocal scientific evidence of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, the international community agreed in late 2015 to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Despite this, Australia's regulatory framework is failing to adequately incorporate climate change impacts into decision making.11
1.18
The Australian Academy of Science agreed that any policy relating to the exploitation of fossil fuels—including those related to offshore seismic activities—must have regard to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change:
As stated in the Commonwealth Academies of Science Consensus Statement on Climate Change, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will require concerted global action to reduce atmospheric carbon. While [the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority] is able to regulate oil and gas exploration within its remit, reducing the impacts of climate change will require more robust action on the part of the Australian Government.12

Offshore petroleum industry's reliance upon seismic surveying

1.19
Seismic surveying is critical to geological research, including as an early operational step in the petroleum exploration process.13 Marine seismic surveys help to identify potential petroleum reservoirs and greenhouse gas storage formations beneath the sea floor.14
1.20
INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd (INPEX), a global oil and gas exploration and production company, operates projects such as the Ichthys LNG project in the Browse Basin offshore Western Australia. INPEX highlighted the importance of marine seismic surveys to petroleum projects:
Ichthys LNG would not exist today if INPEX had not been able to acquire seismic survey data and undertake the exploration and appraisal investment required to discover and mature the Ichthys gas and condensate field.15
1.21
APPEA commented that marine seismic surveys not only reduce risk for exploration and production companies, they also reduce the risk of environmental impacts:
Modern surveys reduce risk by increasing the likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully identify a petroleum accumulation and by decreasing the number of wells that need to be drilled in a given area, thereby reducing associated safety and environmental risks as well as the overall environmental footprint of exploration and development.16
1.22
Cooper Energy, which produces gas offshore Victoria, submitted that following acquisition, seismic data need not be re-acquired for many years, as advances in computing technologies and data processing capabilities allow for existing data to be reprocessed using modern techniques.17 This technological advancement was illustrated by NERA in its submission (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1:  Improvement in seismic data interpretation, 1990–2012

Source: NERA, Submission 65, p. 4.
1.23
Despite technological advancements, other submitters commented that seismic data is periodically reacquired for various reasons: to bridge gaps in existing data; to apply new acquisition technologies to obtain higher quality data; or to monitor the recoverable volume of resources during the life of a project.18
1.24
ConocoPhillips, the third largest integrated energy company in the United States, submitted, for example:
Seismic is not only necessary to locate and identify new reservoirs, it is also essential for the ongoing management of the reservoir to maintain production. Through collection of repeated 3D seismic surveys, a 4D image (with time as the fourth dimension) can be developed. In this way, an understanding of the changing reservoir characteristics through time is used to inform management decisions that can improve both the commercial performance of the development while simultaneously reducing [health, safety and environmental] risks.19

What is marine seismic surveying?

1.25
Marine seismic surveys are primarily conducted using one or more airguns to generate signals or sound waves that penetrate the Earth's subsurface. Geoscience Australia explained the process shown in Figure 1.2:
… airguns release compressed air into the water column as a bubble which, on collapse, generates low-frequency sound waves that propagate through the seafloor into the subsurface. Hydrophones and accelerometers towed behind a seismic vessel measure the reflections of the sound waves, which are used to image geological formations deep below the seafloor.20

Figure 1.2:  How seismic signals work

Source: Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association, asbtia.com.au/seismic-surveys/ (accessed 12 February 2021).
1.26
Marine seismic surveys are usually conducted in 2D or 3D configurations. A 2D seismic survey generates 2D images from a single airgun array and a single streamer of hydrophones. A 3D seismic survey creates a 3D model using multiple parallel hydrophone streamers.21
1.27
Cooper Energy noted that, over the past 20 years, 3D seismic surveys have been preferred over 2D seismic surveys.22 Professor Robert McCauley from the Centre for Marine Science and Technology at Curtin University explained that there are practical reasons for this preference:
The 2D surveys are sparse in their coverage while in contrast the 3D surveys can cover many tens of thousands of square km in the same region, with the source vessel operating as best as possible continually, 24 hours per day.23
1.28
Professor McCauley added that the scale of a seismic survey is important to environmental impacts:
… short or sparse surveys, or surveys which cover a small area, will have limited environmental impacts in time and space. In contrast, a large 3D seismic survey may run for many months in the same area exposing all fauna in the region which have limited escape capability, to potentially damaging signal types.24

Extent of marine seismic surveying in Australia

1.29
Approximately 1850 2D and 3D marine seismic surveys have been conducted in Australia since the 1960s using the airgun system. North-western Australia has been the most surveyed area, with surveys also prominent in the Great Australian Bight and in the Bass Strait region (Figure 1.3).25

Figure 1.3:  Spatial coverage of Australia's 2D and 3D offshore seismic data

Source: Geoscience Australia, Submission 51, p. 7.
1.30
While the annual number of marine seismic surveys has declined, DISER pointed out that the reduced numbers do not equate to a decrease in the amount of surveyed area due to the size of individual surveys. For example:
… while fewer surveys were undertaken in 2018–19 than in 2017–18, they covered a larger physical area so the amount of data acquired was greater. Total seismic activity has been on a downward trend since the 1990s … with five surveys occurring in 2019 compared to 62 in 1980.26
1.31
NERA observed that the business model has also changed over time, with significant growth in the purchase of data from seismic contractors (who conduct multi-client acquisition), rather than oil and gas companies undertaking their own marine seismic surveys.27

Who regulates marine seismic surveying?

1.32
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides coastal states (such as Australia) with sovereign rights to explore and develop natural resources within their 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone and over their continental shelf.28
1.33
Australian governments share responsibility for regulating petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities in this offshore area:
the Australian Government has jurisdiction over 'Commonwealth waters' (defined as three to 200-nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline); and
the state and Northern Territory governments have jurisdiction over coastal waters (up to three-nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline).29
1.34
Based on the information received, the inquiry focussed on the Australian Government's regulation of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities in Commonwealth waters by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA).

Users of Commonwealth waters

1.35
The Australian Government explicitly recognises that there are multiple users of Commonwealth waters. It requires oil and gas exploration companies that are conducting marine seismic surveys to do so in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the recognised rights and interests of other users, such as the commercial fishing industry.30
1.36
Some submitters noted the rights and interests of other users. For example, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) singled out for mention the enjoyment of native title in offshore areas:
These activities are part of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' cultures, customs and traditions; satisfy personal, subsistence or communal needs; and are essential for the health and wellbeing of Indigenous coastal people in Australia … There are more than 150 Indigenous clan groups along the Australian coastline who continue a long‐standing connection with sea country leading to traditional use of marine resources across a large area of Australia.31
1.37
The Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, a research organisation based at the University of Tasmania, focussed on the conservation of resources of the sea and the seabed. It argued that the need to acquire data must be balanced with the damage potentially caused during the seismic acquisition:
… minimising the impact of seismic signals will be vital to ensuring that the oil and gas exploration industry and geophysical research that utilises this methodology can continue their operations without detriment to socioeconomically important fisheries and ecosystems in general.32
1.38
Similar to the offshore petroleum industry, the commercial fishing industry highlighted its contribution to the national and state economies. For example, Seafood Industry Australia advised that 'the Australian seafood industry employs more than 41,000 people and contributes $5.3 billion in total [Gross Value Added]'.33
1.39
Submissions and evidence from the commercial fishing industry expressed concerns about the potential impacts of marine seismic surveying on the wildcatch, aquaculture and postharvest sectors.34
1.40
Numerous individuals and community organisations also voiced concerns about their enjoyment of Commonwealth waters, where offshore petroleum activities have the potential to impact fisheries, tourism and the marine environment.35
1.41
The concerns raised by marine users and researchers in relation to seismic surveying are discussed in the following chapters.

  • 1
    Journals of the Senate, No. 16, 16 September 2019, pp. 493–494. Note: the terms of reference refer to 'seismic testing', however, the term 'seismic surveying' is used throughout this report.
  • 2
    Pursuant to the temporary order agreed to on 23 March 2020 and a progress report presented on 21 May 2021.
  • 3
    Form Letter 1 (123); Form Letter 2 (356); Short Statements (7999): see www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/SeismicTesting/Additional_Documents?docType=Form%20Letters
    (accessed 12 February 2021).
  • 4
    Australian Government, 'Our natural environment', info.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-natural-environment (accessed 29 April 2021).
  • 5
    Parks Australia, 'Australian Marine Parks, Great Australian Bight', atlas.parksaustralia.gov.au/amps?featureId=AMP_SW_GAB
    (accessed 29 April 2021).
  • 6
    Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 3. The department was formerly known as the Department of Innovation, Industry and Science and is referred to in some submissions and other information provided to the inquiry by its former name.
  • 7
    Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Submission 62, p. 1. Also see: pp. 12–13.
  • 8
    Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 3. Also see: Government of South Australia, Submission 20, p. 3.
  • 9
    National Energy Resources Australia, Submission 65, pp. 1–2. Also see: p. 10; International Association of Geophysical Contractors, Submission 34, p. 7; Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Submission 36, p. 7; Geoscience Australia, Submission 51, p. 9.
  • 10
    Surfrider Foundation Australia, Submission 16, p. 1. Also see, for example: Peninsula Environment Group, Submission 33, p. 2; Ms Lisa Deppeler, Submission 78, p. 1; Mr Peter Owen, Director, The Wilderess Society SA and Great Australian Bight Alliance, Committee Hansard, 22 September 2020, p. 4.
  • 11
    Environmental Defenders Office, Submission 46, pp. 4–5. Also see, for example: Mr Clive Salzer, Submission 4, p. 1; Port Stephens Greens, Submission 47, p. 1. Also see: W. J. Ripple et al, 'World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency', BioScience, vol. 70 no. 1, 2020, pp. 8–12.
  • 12
    Australian Academy of Science, Submission 29, p. 2.
  • 13
    See, for example: International Association of Geophysical Contractors, Submission 34, p. 1; Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Submission 62, p. 1.
  • 14
    Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 3.
  • 15
    INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd, Submission 59, p. 3. Also see, for example: Woodside Energy, Submission 57, p. 9; Cooper Energy, Submission 60, p. 5; Santos Limited, Submission 61, pp. 2–3; Equinor Australia B.V., Submission 73, p. 2.
  • 16
    Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Submission 62, p. 8. Also see, for example: Australian Institute of Marine Science, Submission 17, p. 5; Beach Energy Limited, Submission 31, p. 2.
  • 17
    Cooper Energy, Submission 60, p. 5.
  • 18
    See, for example: INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd, Submission 59, p. 3; Santos Limited, Submission 61, p. 3; Equinor Australia B.V., Submission 73, p. 3.
  • 19
    ConocoPhillips, Submission 42, p. 2.
  • 20
    Geoscience Australia, Submission 51, p. 8.
  • 21
    Geoscience Australia, Submission 51, p. 8; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 8.
  • 22
    Cooper Energy, Submission 60, p. 4.
  • 23
    Associate Professor Robert McCauley, Submission 32, p. 2.
  • 24
    Associate Professor Robert McCauley, Submission 32, p. 2.
  • 25
    Geoscience Australia, Submission 51, p. 7; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 9, which noted that offshore Australia is largely unexplored by global comparison. Also see: Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Submission 62, p. 9, which estimated that the total seismic activity equates to 1.6 million line kilometres of 2D seismic data and 1.43 million square kilometres of 3D seismic data.
  • 26
    Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Submission 19, p. 8.
  • 27
    National Energy Resources Australia, Submission 65, p. 5. Note: approximately 42 per cent of environment plans lodged with the regulator are from contractors conducting multi-client data acquisition.
  • 28
    Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arts. 56 and 77, www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
    (accessed 12 February 2021).
  • 29
    Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, ss. 5–6.
  • 30
    Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, s. 280. Also see: Government of South Australia, Submission 20, p. 3; WA Government, Submission 79, p. 3.
  • 31
    Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Submission 81, p. 10.
  • 32
    Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, Submission 36, pp. 7–8.
  • 33
    Seafood Industry Australia, Submission 53, p. 1.
  • 34
    See, for example: Northern Territory Seafood Council, Submission 49, p. 1; Commonwealth Fisheries Association, Submission 55, p. 1; NPF Industry Pty Ltd, Submission 58, p. 1; Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, Submission 67, pp. 2 and 17–27. Also see: Ms Eleanor Lawless, Organiser, Protect Our Coast Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 September 2020, p. 26, in relation to recreational fishers.
  • 35
    See, for example: Ms Susie Crick, Planet Early Childhood Learning Centre, Submission 22, p. 1; Australian Seabird Rescue Central Coast, Submission 25, p. 1; EcoNetwork–Port Stephens, Submission 37, p. 2; Protect Our Coast Alliance, Submission 38, p. 1; Save Our Coast, Submission 39, p. 5; Correct Planning and Consultation for Mayfield Group, Submission 75, p. 1; Mr Vance Lowry and Ms Lyn-Sharon Nash, Submission 76, pp. 1–2.

 |  Contents  |