2.1
Marine seismic surveying generates high-intensity, low-frequency signals or sound that can travel vast distances (100s to 1000s of kilometres) with little loss in energy. Professor Robert McCauley from the Centre for Marine Science and Technology at Curtin University (CMST) commented that 'if you get the right sound propagation conditions you can hear [seismic sound] in Antarctica from Australian waters'.
2.2
A majority of submitters and witnesses argued that seismic sound negatively affects fisheries and the marine environment. Commercial fishers contended that the sound impacts current and future catch, and environmental stakeholders maintained that scientific studies have demonstrated impacts on various marine species, some of which are protected.
2.3
Sea Shepherd Australia, for example, stated its opposition to marine seismic surveying given 'the wealth of documented global examples of impacts to marine life from whales to plankton'.
2.4
This chapter examines the existing body of science, with a particular focus on recent research into the impacts of seismic sound on fisheries and the marine environment in 'Commonwealth waters' (see Chapter 1).
Marine seismic sound
2.5
Submitters and witnesses all agreed that the oceans are full of sound. Naturally occurring sound is used by animals for various purposes, such as to communicate, navigate, orientate, feed and detect predators, as well as for habitat selection and mating.
2.6
Mr Jeff Hansen, Managing Director of Sea Shepherd Australia, for example, outlined the unique physical characteristic of the marine environment and the resulting heavy reliance that sea creatures—such as whales—place on underwater soundscapes:
Our world is a very visual one, in that we can see for kilometres to the horizon and millions of kilometres out into space, because air is a fantastic medium for light. However, in the ocean, even on the clearest days, we can at best see only 30 metres or so into the sea. For marine life, like whales, hearing is the primary sense for safe navigation, finding food, finding a mate and keeping mother and child safe. Like air is for light, water is a fantastic medium for sound—so much so that a blue whale's call could be heard right around the other side of the globe prior to human induced noise in the ocean.
2.7
Some submitters argued that the man-made or anthropogenic sound is increasing, and seismic surveying is a major contributor to this form of marine 'pollution'. The Australian Marine Conservation Society and Save Our Marine Life (AMCS and SOML) referenced Dr Christopher Clark from the Cornell Lab of Ornicology's Bioacoustics Research Program, who described seismic sound as 'acoustical bleaching, a human-made cacophony'.
2.8
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) agreed that seismic surveying produces some of the most intense anthropogenic noise in oceans:
Typical ambient sea noise in coastal waters (of which shipping is a primary contributor) is around 130 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 metre … A seismic airgun array typically has a source level of between 220–230 dB re μ1 Pa @ 1 metre, although an array of airguns may be 260 dB re μ1 Pa @1 metre … with the strongest components at a frequency of around 50-100 Hz … Airguns are one of the loudest sounds in the ocean; louder than any known biological sound.
2.9
Ms Gemma Freeman contextualised the volume of these ambient and anthropogenic sounds, as follows:
… seismic test blasts are up to 256 decibel...NASA's Saturn V Rocket … was 204 decibels. Hiroshima was 256 decibels. Human hearing can be damaged at 85 decibels. Cetacean auditory systems are also hyper sensitive, due to using sonar for communication and navigation, able to hear sounds hundreds of miles away underwater. Standing next to just one NASA rocket would deafen you. But having that noise repeatedly blasted at you every 3 seconds, 24 hours a day, for months?
2.10
Greenpeace Australia Pacific highlighted that the hearing abilities of marine species are poorly understood, and the auditory sensitivity of each species varies greatly, with differences dependant on factors such as individual size, gender, life history or conditioning. For example, in relation to fish, 'data on hearing capabilities exist for only around 100 of the 27,000 or more existing species'.
2.11
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) submitted that anthropogenic sound has the potential to impact marine animals in various ways:
Anthropogenic sounds can mask vocal communication, disrupt normal behaviours, and cause temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing … Such impacts, if persistent and chronic enough, may ultimately have adverse impacts on foraging and reproduction and individual health and fitness which can manifest in population effects … In extreme cases, there is physical damage to tissues and organs when individuals are close to the high point source sounds created by geophysical surveys.
2.12
The CSIRO added that there is not enough scientific knowledge about ocean sound, including seismic sound:
The international community is encouraging the establishment of a Global Ocean Acoustical Observing System, building on platforms and capability such as the Integrated Marine Observing System in Australian waters... Ongoing monitoring of the ocean soundscape in Australian waters would facilitate the quantification and assessment of noise, including spatial and temporal variance in the marine environment. Furthering our understanding of the footprints of activities generating noise, how noise is perceived by various organisms in the marine environment, and the likely impacts of noise on marine organisms will support the provision of important input into processes to regulate activities generating noise in the marine environment.
Lower-impact technologies
2.13
As noted in Chapter 1, airgun technology has been used as the industry standard for seismic surveys for many decades. Several submitters noted the development of lower‑impact technologies—such as marine vibroseis and ocean bottom seismic—which they considered could be used to reduce the amount of seismic sound in the marine environment.
2.14
However, they argued that there is no impetus for the offshore oil and gas industry to commercialise and employ these technologies. For example, IFAW submitted that 'the oil and gas industry is unlikely to expedite the development of these new technologies without the necessary encouragement and pressure from regulatory governmental agencies'.
2.15
Greenpeace Australia Pacific added that the seismic activity proponents should be required to 'explore and employ alternative technologies which demonstrate a lower decibel footprint in order to minimise any impacts on marine fauna and ecosystems'.
2.16
Some submitters and witnesses questioned the viability of the lower-impact technologies. The International Association of Geophysical Contractors submitted, for example, that there are both commercial and environmental reasons why the new technologies have not been more widely used:
Alternative technologies, such as marine vibroseis, continue to be explored, however this type of technology is not yet commercialized and has not yet been shown to provide comparable seismic data quality. Moreover, the possible environmental benefits of alternative technologies have not yet been demonstrated.
2.17
On its website, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) has commented similarly:
… a number of lower amplitude sound source technologies [are] in development, such as marine vibroseis … While these new technologies have the potential to reduce environmental impacts, they are not yet commercially available and may have other impacts and risks.
2.18
Ms Merrie-Ellen Gunning from Geoscience Australia told the inquiry that marine vibroseis in particular has been in development for decades:
Marine Vibroseis has been looked at for about 50 years now, since the 1950s, and it hasn't been made to work. But the importance of the environment and the impacts on the environment and the reality that Vibroseis may have advantages over airgun arrays have been a bit more high profile of late. But, given research has been ongoing for a long time, we're long way from making it work at the moment. Industry is a long way from making it work.
2.19
Nonetheless, offshore petroleum companies emphasised that they continue to invest in the development of lower-impact technologies and are encouraged to do so by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (OPGGS Regulations) (see Chapters 4 to 6).
2.20
ConocoPhillips, for example, has developed proprietary technology known as Compressive Seismic Imaging (CSI), which the company utilised on its Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project:
CSI has transformed the way we collect seismic data as it provides greatly improved image quality while also reducing the time that vessels need to be in the field to acquire the data. Not only does this benefit the company through reduced costs, it also reduces potential impacts and risks to the environment while reducing the potential to impact the activities of other marine users.
2.21
Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) representative Mr Jason Medd indicated that wherever possible industry would utilise lower-impact technologies: 'the industry is always examining and looking at alternatives to the airguns or any other bespoke methods that would suit what they're proposing to do'.
2.22
APPEA noted that Beach Energy Limited (Beach Energy) is proposing to trial three alternative acquisition technologies for its proposed Prion 3D marine seismic survey (see Chapter 3).
2.23
The committee notes advice from NOPSEMA that there is an increasing 'likelihood of alternative technologies with lower environmental impact or greater mitigation benefits becoming affordable and available'.
2.24
NOPSEMA appeared to base its view on the fact that some alternative approaches already exist and are available for use:
Already a number of alternative approaches to mitigation exist that may have significant environmental benefit, including the use of drones for more effective marine fauna observation, bubble curtains to lessen the sound footprint of the airguns which may lessen sound transmission by up to 50 dB and more effective real time passive acoustic monitoring.
2.25
NOPSEMA submitted that anthropogenic sound is recognised by environmental protection agencies as a 'pressure' for a number of protected marine species. Accordingly, 'there is real potential for serious impacts to marine animals from intense sounds produced by seismic surveys and other anthropogenic sounds if those activities are not managed properly'.
2.26
NOPSEMA noted, while there is a significant and increasing body of research on the impacts of seismic testing, 'there are still many species for which the effects of underwater sound from seismic surveys are not fully understood, and may never be'.
Committee view
2.27
The committee recognises that offshore seismic surveying contributes to the level of sound in our oceans and accepts that seismic signals can produce sound well above ambient levels for at least intermittent periods. The committee heard that this sound is known to impact marine animals to varying degrees and considers that this impact should be mitigated wherever possible using all available means.
2.28
In this regard, the committee notes that lower-impact technologies have been under development for some time, and there is some debate regarding the viability of these technologies for both environmental and commercial reasons. The committee believes that it is time for the development of these technologies to be expedited, rather than being investigated in a lacklustre fashion.
2.29
The committee considers that the Australian Government should be supporting the development and use of lower‑impact technologies, including through investing in the development of these technologies and by explicitly requiring activity proponents to consider and adopt lower-impact technologies in activity proposals.
2.30
The committee recommends that the Australian Government support the development and use of lower-impact technologies for all offshore seismic surveying to reduce the potential impacts of seismic testing on marine animals and the marine environment. This support could include:
joint government/petroleum industry funding for the development of the alternative technologies;
consultation with relevant scientific experts, fisheries, environmental and community organisations; and
an express regulatory requirement for activity proponents to consider and adopt lower-impact technologies in activity proposals.
Existing body of science and research
2.31
Most submitters and witnesses commented on the existing body of science and research in Australia, with minor reference to international research collaborations (see Chapters 3 and 6). In general, they agreed that the limited evidence base proves some impact to fisheries and the marine environment.
2.32
Several submitters and witnesses argued that, on account of what is known, there should be a moratorium on offshore seismic surveying. For example, The Wilderness Society submitted that it is 'calling 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'.
2.33
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.
Current evidence base
2.34
Several submitters argued that traditionally, researchers have focussed on the environmental impacts of offshore seismic surveying on larger adaptive animals, such as cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions).
2.35
Professor McCauley explained that historically 'there's been no incentive for people to do experiments with the lesser animals—the fish, the squid, the scallops … so no one has done anything'. However, he indicated that this has gradually begun to change:
The petroleum industry responds to the legislation that they have to follow. The legislation they have to follow is all about marine mammals. Occasionally, it comes down to turtles. In the last five years, it's changed a little bit.
2.36
Professor McCauley also said that there is now more research into the impact of seismic sound on marine invertebrates, which has shown that seismic sound also impacts those types of marine animals: '[In that research] we started to see, quite predictably, impacts on invertebrates. We're just scratching the surface of understanding what's going on'.
2.37
Greenpeace Australia Pacific expressed a view that the impacts of seismic testing have long been underestimated:
… it is increasingly clear that the threat of harm to marine life and ecosystems posed by seismic testing has been significantly underestimated in the scarce research that has been published on the topic.
2.38
The committee notes contrasting evidence received from Mr John Hughes representing The Norwood Resource. Mr Hughes said that there is a 'wealth of study, both published and unpublished' regarding the impact of anthropogenic sound on marine animals: 'Most of the early work was actually carried out on invertebrates and, of course, fish. This was because smaller animals could be placed in tanks, cages, et cetera'.
2.39
As will be discussed in Chapter 3, NOPSEMA has acknowledged that the body of scientific knowledge is incomplete but stressed that all available knowledge is considered in environmental impact assessments (EIA), where activity proponents are required to consider and manage potential impacts to each marine fauna group that might be affected by a proposed seismic survey.
2.40
The regulator acknowledged that 'it is important to recognise when the EIA supporting science may be incomplete or insufficient resulting in high levels of scientific uncertainty by applying greater levels of precaution when interpreting the EIA outputs and applying mitigation measures'.
Committee view
2.41
The committee accepts that, historically, research studies have focussed primarily on the impacts of seismic testing on larger adaptive marine animals. The committee acknowledges that studies have now broadened to consider potential impacts on a wider range of marine animals, including invertebrates (also see Recommendation 2).
Recent research on marine invertebrates
2.42
In 2010, following a seismic survey in the Bass Strait, fishers in the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery reported large scale mortalities and poor-quality scallops (Figure 2.1, with the fishery highlighted in purple).
2.43
The Scallop Fishermen's Association of Tasmania (SFAT) submitted that 'there was plenty of forensic evidence with masses of dead scallop shells but no definite proof that seismic was the cause'. 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.
2.44
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.
2.45
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) agreed that these and other concerns expressed by the fishing and aquaculture sectors have prompted a number of research studies into the impact of seismic signals exposure, some of which are described below.
FRDC research project into commercial scallop and southern rock lobster
2.46
One project—conducted by researchers from IMAS and the CMST—responded directly to the concerns raised by fishers in the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery. FRDC Research Project 2012/008 investigated the impacts of seismic signal exposure on the commercial scallop and the southern rock lobster.
2.47
The researchers found:
for both target species—exposure did not, or was not likely to, cause immediate mass mortality;
for commercial scallop—there was a range of sub-lethal effects, and significant changes in behaviour and reflexes during and following exposure; and
for southern rock lobster—there were alterations of several important aspects of lobster biology.
2.48
Many submitters and witnesses considered these findings to evidence the impacts of seismic signal exposure on marine invertebrates. For example, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) and Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) described the findings as 'the most relevant, up to date peer reviewed science', which they stated has been published in 'some of the most influential scientific journals in the world'.
2.49
Communities with concerns about seismic surveying in their local area also referenced the IMAS research findings, expressing their opposition to these outcomes. The Protect Our Coast Alliance, for example, submitted that the IMAS findings 'need to be directly addressed and responded to with adequate research and evidence before the community can have any confidence in the use of seismic testing for any purpose in our coastal waters'.
2.50
Mr Peter Morris representing Save Our Coast highlighted the strength of this opposition in his community.
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.
2.51
IMAS itself noted however that its study is subject to several caveats, namely its limited focus which left many questions unanswered:
… it focused solely on the physiology and behaviour of individuals within the study. As such, the mechanistic causes for the damage and disruptions reported were not identified and require further investigation to understand. Similarly, quantification of the ecological impacts of these results was not within the scope of the study, so it is not possible to conclude what the broader impacts of the findings may be.
2.52
Professor Jayson Semmens, lead scientist for FRDC Research Project 2012/008, told the committee that 'the next step would be doing a full-scale [seismic] array and starting to look at whether there are any different impacts or whether the results change'.
2.53
Later in the inquiry, representatives from Beach Energy advised that the company has committed to advancing the findings from FRDC Research Project 2012/008. Ms Linda French, Community Manager, said that a field‑based study is in development, with her colleague, Mr Wayne Mothershaw, providing some details of the $2–4 million study:
The intention is to do it at the completion of our [seismic] survey. It'll use the same vessel with a full array, and it'll be a scallop and lobster research project, in conjunction with IMAS and the FRDC, to test real-world conditions at various distances to assess their impact. Then the researchers will take the scallops and lobsters back to Hobart and study them for about six months post survey.
2.54
The committee notes that, in 2018, the CarbonNet project conducted a 14-day seismic survey in the Gippsland Basin offshore Victoria. Its pre- and post‑survey habitat assessment found an increased number of rock lobster after the survey, compared to individuals prior to the survey (from 81 to 122 individuals), which was attributed to 'seasonal effects'.
University of Tasmania zooplankton project
2.55
IMAS and the CMST also conducted a study into the impacts of seismic signal exposure on the biomass of zooplankton communities. They reported 'a significant and substantial decrease in the abundance of zooplankton in the sampling area' and 'a significant increase in the proportion of dead plankton' that:
… raises concerns over the potential ecological effects of seismic surveys. Previously, environmental impact assessments assumed an impact range [in] the order of 10 m from the source, whereas this study found an effect over an area two orders of magnitude greater [up to a maximum of 1.2km]. There is a critical need to follow up this research with greater replication and in other ecosystems to better understand the potential effect of seismic surveys on the plankton communities that underpin marine food webs.
2.56
Some submitters and witnesses commented on the importance of zooplankton in the food chain and the implications arising from the University of Tasmania study. For example, the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association submitted that zooplankton is a critical food source for sardines, which are themselves an important part of the diet for Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT):
On its annual migratory path from South Africa to [New Zealand], the SBT spend December/March in the [Great Australian Bight (Bight)], where the major sardine feed resource provides up to 80% of SBT's annual global growth. Australia has ‘an international duty of care’ in this regard … The Bight is a ‘sardine driven ecosystem’ and sardines eat zooplankton … Discharges from seismic survey airguns kill zooplankton.
2.57
Dr Mark Meekan from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) described the potential impacts of seismic signal exposure on zooplankton as 'an absolutely key question that needs to be answered' in a properly funded standalone study. His colleague Dr Paul Hardisty advised that planning for such a study is well underway:
We have currently designed with a multiple stakeholder group a study that is designed to be very much like … the North West Shoals to Shore study, with the actual seismic shoot-at scale in the proper environment. That study has been put together as a proposal, and we have started to try to raise funds to actually activate that work. We have been successful in obtaining a couple of million dollars' worth of time on the Marine National Facility, the Investigator, which would form the key vessel for the work. We've also attracted interest in funding … However, we remain several millions of dollars short of bringing that project together.
2.58
The committee notes that, in response to the University of Tasmania's findings, APPEA commissioned the CSIRO to model the reported effects on a population and ecosystem dynamic:
The CSIRO report found that even if the full effect claimed … did in fact exist, plankton abundance would not be adversely affected during the extensive movement of water masses carrying plankton through survey areas, and the rapid reproductive cycle and high reproductive potential characteristics of planktonic organisms. The CSIRO study showed that it would take about three days after the end of a typical 4000 cui [cubic inch] seismic exploration survey for the plankton to recover to original levels.
2.59
NOPSEMA acknowledged that, in addition to major marine groups, 'a number of marine invertebrate species that are of commercial importance … could be affected by sound from seismic surveys'. However, the regulator stated:
No mortal effects have been observed for marine invertebrates from seismic surveys, [although] the particle motion aspect of sound has been found to result in damage to lobster statocysts.
2.60
In relation to zooplankton, NOPSEMA noted that the particle motion component of sound has potentially mortal and injurious impacts. However:
… it is important to note that one of the primary values of zooplankton is as a food source for other species and as such they have a very high natural mortality rate and typically, high reproductive rates. The impacts of seismic sound on plankton do not remove them from the food web and as such the nutrients and energy they contain are retained within the ecosystem.
2.61
NOPSEMA also referenced the findings from the CSIRO study—namely, 'effects from a real world seismic survey were likely to be short-term and relatively localised'—before concluding that the impacts of seismic signal exposure on zooplankton biomass can be managed to avoid 'changes to the availability of plankton to higher trophic order species'.
Committee view
2.62
The recent research studies outlined above appear to support the view that the impacts of seismic sound exposure have been and are being underestimated. The committee notes that, while contributing to the current evidence base, both studies have raised further questions that researchers consider need to be addressed, particularly in light of equally credible but contradictory studies (see Recommendation 2).
Recent research on other marine species
2.63
In addition to research concerning marine invertebrates, there have been some recent studies into the impacts of seismic signal exposure on other marine species, two of which are described below.
Gippsland Basin offshore Victoria
2.64
In 2019 CGG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (CGG Services) received approval to undertake a multi-client 3D seismic survey in the Gippsland Basin offshore Victoria. The operational area covered approximately 13 421 km² with a seismic acquisition area of 11 161 km² (Figure 2.2).
2.65
As part of its environmental approval, CGG Services committed to two research studies aimed at evaluating the impacts of seismic signal exposure on the catch rates of two local fisheries: the octopus fishery and the Danish Seine fishery, whose key species are tiger flathead and eastern school whiting.
2.66
The second study comprised a Multiple—Before After Control Impact (M‑BACI) survey that was co-funded by CGG Services and the FRDC (FRDC Project 2019-072).
2.67
In July 2020 preliminary results were released for Phase 1 of the four part study, appearing to show a significant adverse impact from seismic signal exposure to catch in the Danish Seine fishery (Figure 2.3).
2.68
Mr Simon Boag representing the South-East Australian Fishing Industry said 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.
2.69
Mr Adrian Meder representing AMCS argued that the impacts shown in the study are comparable or even higher than the statutory threshold for key threatening processes:
… something that is having the amount of impact we have seen so quickly on catch rates … suggests a level of impact that regulation of many other marine activities would put an immediate stop to... Some of the research we have seen—the impacts on zooplankton, for example … also highlights similar concerning issues that establish a potential environmental impact that's right on the level of some of these other listed threatening processes in the marine environment.
2.70
In October 2020 a summary report was released covering catch rates for flathead and whiting following phases 1 to 3 of the project. The researchers found overall:
for whiting—the analyses provided robust evidence for a negative impact of seismic acquisition on catch rates up to ~100 days following the survey; and
for flathead—the analyses provided robust evidence for a negative impact of seismic acquisition on catch rates up to ~200 days following the survey.
2.71
Speaking to these findings, Mr Boag said that 'while school whiting has showed signs of recovering, both whiting and flathead catch rates remain very low and have been significantly impacted'.
North West Shoals to Shore Research Program
2.72
In 2017 AIMS partnered with Quadrant Northwest Pty Ltd (now Santos Energy) to improve baseline information for sensitive systems and species in north western Australia through four major themes (North West Shoals to Shore Research Program). The Marine Noise Monitoring and Impacts theme is examining the impacts of seismic activities on pearl oysters and demersal fish, with two large-scale experiments conducted in 2018.
2.73
Dr Hardisty described the study as:
… the very first of its kind, because it's done at scale with actual seismic equipment and vessels that are used by the oil industry in open water and then underpinned by a very wide and deep testing regime that focuses on demersal fish, the type that are often used in commercial fisheries in that part of the world, and also pearl oysters.
2.74
The Pearl Producers Association (PPA) expressed particular concern for the Australian South Sea Pearling industry, the largest aquaculture industry in Northern Australia. It argued that the industry relies almost exclusively on the harvest of pearl oysters from the fishery at Eighty Mile Beach in Western Australia, which is close to a high concentration of petroleum titles (Figure 2.4, with the titles highlighted in yellow, also see Chapter 4).
2.75
PPA and AIMS agreed that there is potential for offshore petroleum exploration to affect the area around Eighty Mile Beach, with the latter organisation remarking that 'oil and gas exploration around high-value commercial fisheries has been prevalent for many years [in North West Australia] and will continue into the future'.
2.76
The committee notes that the results of the North West Shoals to Shore Research Program are being peer reviewed and prepared for publication.
2.77
NOPSEMA representatives responded to the concerns raised in relation to CGG Services' Gippsland 3D marine seismic survey. Mr Cameron Grebe, Head of the Environment Division, said that the results from Phase 1 of the Danish Seine fishery research study 'reinforced the predictions [described below] that were made as part of the environmental impact assessment for that survey'. His colleague, Mr Tim Carter, explained:
The environment plan [EP] … did predict that fish would move away from the underwater noise, and that may then translate into reduced ability of the fishery to catch fish at the rate that they have typically caught them. As a result of that prediction, the [EP] included a commitment to have a compensation process where commercial fishers could lodge a claim and where the evidence was essentially an assessment of the fishery catch data during the survey compared with fishery catch data from the previous three years. Where that analysis demonstrated there was a loss, CGG [Services] had made a commitment to pay compensation that accounted for that loss. That was the prediction.
2.78
Mr Grebe noted that the value of this study is its addition to the existing body of knowledge on the impacts of seismic signal exposure: 'It's in fact increasing the certainty, which was already fairly well understood, that a range of studies have shown that fish species do swim away'.
Committee view
2.79
The committee recognises that, at the time of writing, it is not possible to draw final conclusions about the findings of these two ongoing research studies. However, and notwithstanding NOPSEMA's evidence regarding displacement, the very high phase 1 to 3 results from the Danish Seine fishery study are staggering. The committee is pleased to note that this impact has been recognised by CGG Services in the form of a Fisheries Displacement Mitigation Plan (see Chapter 3).
Extent of impacts from marine seismic surveying
2.80
As noted in preceding sections of this chapter, many submitters and witnesses raised concerns about what they argue are significant limitations in the current evidence base (also see Chapter 3). The CSIRO observed that this leads to great uncertainty 'around the degree of impact of anthropogenic sounds such as those generated during geophysical surveys and the relevant pressure‑response pathways across most taxonomic groups'.
2.81
For some, seismic surveying has undeniably high impacts. Mr Graham Hammond, Chairman of the SFAT, said, for example:
… with our surveys, we had identified fish from two or three years of age to four to six years of age and spawning was going on. So you've got new beds coming on all the time over this huge area. And this 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.
2.82
Members of the community also had no doubts that seismic testing has immeasurable and adverse impacts on marine animals and the marine environment. The following commentary encapsulates the view of multiple form letter submitters:
I strongly oppose seismic testing due to well known impacts on the entire ecosystem. Seismic testing is known to harm marine animals, kill plankton 1.2 km away, cause malformations in scallops, and deafen and harm fish, seals, penguins, dolphins and whales. Our coast is in the whale migration path, home to hundreds of dolphins and has a rich biodiversity. It is also a thriving multimillion dollar tourist industry which will be compromised by seismic testing. Many marine animals, including some endangered [animals], travel through or live off our coast all year round including many whale species, turtles, seals and penguins. There is no safe time to conduct seismic testing.
2.83
Mr Vince Lowry and Ms Lyn-Sharon Nash, residents of the Central Coast region, highlighted another community concern: seismic testing can be the precursor to petroleum production activities, which also have catastrophic environmental impacts:
In addition to risks posed for wildlife, the seismic blasts are the precursor to offshore gas drilling and extraction. There are risks associated with the inadvertent release of hydrocarbons into the air and water, leading to oil spills, more polluted beaches and waters, more industrial equipment, and fewer pristine places for wildlife and people. Extracting and burning of natural gas would also significantly worsen the climate crisis.
2.84
In contrast to these views, other submitters and witnesses contended that the evidence base sufficiently demonstrates that there are no significant impacts on fisheries and the marine environment.
Extent of impacts
2.85
APPEA specifically noted the amount of seismic surveying that has taken place offshore Australia since the 1960s (see Chapter 1) and submitted:
In all that time, and across millions of kilometres, there is no credible evidence that seismic survey sound has had any significant impacts on marine mammals, marine life, or the broader marine environment.
2.86
APPEA added that, based on this history, 'it is broadly considered that any notable impact to marine fauna will only occur within close range of the sound array'. Referring to recent studies, the peak body stated that 'there may be broader and less obvious impacts on certain marine species, but it is unlikely that this would translate to significant population level impacts'.
2.87
The International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) agreed that impacts from typical marine seismic surveys are localised and are of a short‑term nature only:
Marine seismic vessels move along a survey racetrack in the water creating a line of seismic impulses … As the seismic vessel is in motion, each signal is short in duration, local and transient. Fish may react to these pulses by temporarily swimming away from the seismic air source. When fish move away from a survey vessel they often return after the vessel has passed. There is no conclusive evidence, however, showing long-term or permanent displacement of fish. Because the sound output from a seismic survey is immediate and local, there is also no contaminate residue or destruction of habitat.
2.88
In relation to displacement, Professor McCauley remarked however that lower order animals—such as small fish, plankton, squid and benthic animals—'simply can't get out of the way of the seismic survey. They have to deal with the implications of the large-amplitude air gun signals'.
2.89
In terms of volume, APPEA submitted that 'the sound produced during seismic surveys is comparable in magnitude to many naturally occurring and other man-made sound sources' (Figure 2.5).
2.90
The CSIRO commented however that there are difficulties in comparing underwater sound generated through marine seismic surveying with other ocean sounds:
Without direct measurements of the soundscape of any area of interest, it is difficult, firstly, to characterise the underwater sound produced by oil and gas exploration through time in relation to all other sound sources. It is therefore difficult to estimate the potential area exposed to levels of noise associated with impacts for particular species (including cumulative impacts) and thereby the extent of impact of exploration activity on marine life within the region.
2.91
NOPSEMA submitted that it places great emphasis on the use of quality science in the EIA process, management of offshore activities and in decision‑making, including by ensuring that 'the best available science and appropriate seismic mitigation measures are applied by proponents'.
Committee view
2.92
The committee does not accept that the current evidence base is sufficient to preclude further research into the impacts of seismic sound exposure on marine animals and the marine environment.
2.93
Although there is a long history of marine seismic surveying, the committee heard that most environmental research studies have had a limited focus (larger adaptive animals). As shown in recent studies, had there been a broader focus, there would now be a stronger evidence base and therefore a greater understanding of the impacts of exposure to seismic sound on marine animals, which the committee considers necessary and desirable knowledge.
2.94
Further, the committee notes that the EIA process did not exist for most offshore seismic surveys until after commencement of the OPGGS Regulations. Therefore, it is only in the past 10 years that the requirement for EIAs has elevated environmental issues, requiring activity proponents to thoroughly examine such matters in their EPs.
2.95
The committee recommends that the Australian Government significantly fund additional research to study the short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts of seismic testing on marine animals and the marine environment.
2.96
The committee heard that one matter which has gone largely unnoticed is the unknown impact of cumulative exposure to seismic sound. The committee notes that EPs can encompass more than one survey (see paragraph 4.40), and these surveys would all take place within proponents' title areas. In the committee's view, if it is not already doing so, NOPSEMA should be specifically considering the potential for unknown cumulative impacts when assessing EPs lodged for acceptance.
2.97
The committee recommends that the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority take into consideration the extent of seismic activities in a title area to date, and as proposed in an environment plan, to mitigate the potential for unknown impacts to marine animals and the marine environment as a result of the survey.
Commitment toward environmental risk management
2.98
Earlier in this chapter, Professor McCauley stated that the offshore petroleum industry only responds to the legislation that it has to follow. Other submitters and witnesses questioned the industry's enthusiasm for funding research, as well as its response to adverse scientific findings and its interpretation of key terms aimed at environment protection (see Chapters 3 to 5).
2.99
The Western Australian Fishing Industry Council submitted, for example, that there is selective use of scientific literature:
When a new seismic paper is released showing any potential negative evidence, we have observed the proactive and targeted early review of these papers by some oil, gas and seismic proponents with what appears to be an aim to discredit these papers or to downplay any recognised potential impacts.
2.100
Ms Pauline Nolle, a rock lobster fisher in the Otway Basin, stated:
… the explorer scopes the impact of their activity, dictates what constitutes 'consultation' with those they deem impacted and decides what (if any) mitigation measures are needed to reduce the impact to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable … in order to get the job done.
2.101
However, some submitters argued that seismic activity proponents are committed to understanding and managing the environmental risks associated with marine seismic surveying.
2.102
APPEA commented, for example, that the offshore petroleum industry upholds strict environmental standards to manage potential risks to marine life from seismic surveying, as required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Offshore Petroleum Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) (see Chapters 4 and 5). For instance:
A number of mitigation and management measures are implemented during [a] survey to ensure any environmental implications as a result of the survey are minimised. These can include significant mitigation measures to protect marine animals, including avoiding migration seasons, using a dedicated marine fauna observer during survey activities; restrictions on anchorage (unless there is an emergency); etc.
2.103
Several submitters also highlighted oil and gas exploration companies' contributions toward national and international studies that aim to enhance understanding of the impacts of seismic signal exposure.
Industry involvement in research studies
2.104
Many submitters supported the offshore petroleum industry's involvement in research studies, due to its ability to facilitate field studies (equipment and operational information) and provide data subsequent to the survey (data which might not be otherwise published).
2.105
NERA for instance submitted that the offshore petroleum industry has a vested interest in credible research, as well as the resources to match:
If research is funded and oversighted by industry, the outputs are often criticised as biased towards industry's objectives. However, industry often has the resources, interests, data and need to support research relating to understanding the impact of activities.
2.106
NERA argued that the independence of outcomes could be ensured with appropriate checks and balances—such as in collaborations with reputable research organisations—as occurred with, for example, the North West Shoals to Shore Research Program.
2.107
Santos Limited, IAGC and The Norwood Resource agreed that their industry has a role in research studies and expressed some dissatisfaction with research that has not been conducted in collaboration with them. The Norwood Resource described such research as having relied upon 'flawed scientific methodology or on exposing marine organisms to sound levels that are very clearly not typical of seismic surveys'.
2.108
In addition, and as indicated in paragraph 2.38, The Norwood Resource remarked that peer reviewed literature comprises only part of the information collected during a marine seismic survey, as required by statute or regulation:
… [unpublished data] is largely ignored when it comes to reviews of the perceived impact of seismic surveys on marine life. However, it is this basic observational information that should first be considered to plan and conduct further monitoring and/or research to investigate potential knowledge gaps.
2.109
IFAW agreed that additional data collected during a marine seismic survey should be more widely shared:
… it is deeply regrettable that companies do not share these data more widely or do not provide funding to researchers to enable them to write up and publish this information.
2.110
The Wilderness Society suggested that Australia (like Italy) should require the collection and publication of before and after survey data to better inform mitigation measures and provide guidance for future seismic surveys.
Committee view
2.111
The committee recognises that activity proponents are required to conduct EIA for proposed marine seismic surveys and to use environmental risk mitigation measures throughout a survey (see Chapters 4 and 5).
2.112
The committee considers that it would be prudent for activity proponents to collect marine animal and marine environment-related data for a minimum period before, during and after the conduct of seismic surveys.
2.113
Comprehensive and up-to-date data would not only assist in the preparation of proponents' environment plans, it would also progress current understanding of the impacts of seismic activities on marine animals and the marine environment.
2.114
In the committee's view, the industry should be assisting with the enhancement of the current evidence base, including through the sharing of before, during and after survey data, whether or not this data has been subsequently analysed and/or published elsewhere.
2.115
The committee recommends that the Australian Government require activity proponents to collect and share marine animal and marine environment-related data that has been collected before, during and after a seismic survey to improve current understanding of the impacts of seismic testing.