|
senate vote 2023-11-10#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-02-08 16:11:01
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; in Committee- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I've got two series of questions in relation to these amendments that I'd like to pursue with the minister. And I see that Minister McAllister is now here—not that I have a problem with Minister Watt, of course! I know he cares deeply about our oceans and their health, being the fisheries minister.</p><p>Minister, one of the reasons for the Greens amendments to get assurances around potential liabilities from these projects is the very serious risk that carbon capture and storage are largely commercially unproven technologies in new geological formations that have never been used for carbon capture and storage in the oceans. Let's be clear again: there really is only one long-term carbon capture and storage facility in the ocean that's been going for decades, and that's off Norway. We've talked about that. It's had a lot of problems, and I'd like to ask some questions about that today. But these do relate to our amendments to provide security.</p><p>The first area we're seeking assurances through our amendments on is in relation to the potential decommissioning costs of carbon capture and storage projects, because the nature of them appears to be they're using depleted oil and gas fields. The logic of that is depleted oil and gas fields have already been used and studied over many years, so companies have a history of understanding those geological formations. So my first question, Minister, is: you mentioned two days ago—and I have a copy of the <i>Hansard</i> transcript here—that there were a number of domestic projects looking to import CO2. You said the words, 'They're currently exploring the possibilities'. They include CStore1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and the Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory. In relation to CStore1 in Western Australia and CarbonNet in Victoria and the SEA CCS hub in Victoria, could you tell me: what geological basins are those projects in? This is very important. If you could seek that information for me, I would be very grateful.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Thank you for the question, Senator Whish-Wilson. I don't have that information at hand. I will see if it may be made available.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>If you could get that for me this morning if possible—specifically whether those areas are utilising depleted oil and gas fields. Are you aware of that information, Minister? Rather than the specific geological structures or the names of the fields—I know there are, obviously, two in Victoria and one in Western Australia. There are a number of basins; the way these are described under acreage titles, there are a number of basins. Could you tell me whether these companies are going to be using depleted oil and gas fields for potential storage of imported carbon dioxide from overseas?</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I note your question, Senator Whish-Wilson. As I've said in response to the previous question, I don't have that information with me. I'll see what could be made available.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>We obviously know the Bayu-Undan field is a depleted field, and that's why the Barossa project wants to access it and that's why the Timor government is potentially saying they're open for business, if that gets up and running. And we know that Woodside is interested in that, because the Sunrise project is partly in the Timor Sea and very close to our national boundary with the Timor Sea, so it borders both Australian and the East Timorese territories. I'm particularly interested in whether these depleted fields are going to be used. My guess and my assumption this morning is that they will be depleted oil and gas fields.</p><p>The reason for this, and why these amendments are really important, is, right around the country, our offshore oil and gas regulator under the OPGGS Act, NOPSEMA, is currently overseeing a decommissioning strategy for oil and gas fields around this country. Minister, are you aware of NOPSEMA's decommissioning strategy for existing depleted or close-to-depleted oil and gas fields in Australia's oceans?</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>Minister?</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I'm not seeking the call, thanks. I'm just assessing the information I have.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is anyone else seeking the call? Senator Whish-Wilson?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I think the minister said she was just looking for some information. I'm happy to wait.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, she's not seeking the call.</p><p>I didn't hear her say that.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I'm not seeking the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>That's alright; you don't know the answer. If you could get it for me, I would be grateful. You're in here steering through the Senate and this parliament legislation that's going to facilitate new oil and gas fields by using previously depleted oil and gas fields to potentially store carbon dioxide to pump these emissions back into the ground, even though there's no evidence this works anywhere around the world on a commercial scale.</p><p>What's really triggered my interest in this bill is not just that this is very likely to be greenwashing for the oil and gas industry to help them get up new projects; right around this nation, companies that have been operating in the ocean, oil and gas fields have significant liabilities under the NOPSEMA decommissioning strategy and compliance plan. The Wilderness Society estimates up to $60 billion in liabilities. Through questioning from the Greens in Senate estimates over recent years and, may I say, working with amazing stakeholders like The Wilderness Society and others who care about our oceans—Greenpeace have been very prominent in this campaign as well—we have managed to get Woodside Petroleum and some other companies to remove some infrastructure from the ocean that's been sitting there rusting. The teaser turret is a good example; that was only removed in recent months, and NOPSEMA confirmed that. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars of liabilities out there for oil and gas companies sitting on their balance sheet, I would expect. These are not insignificant amounts of money, even for wealthy, highly profitable oil and gas companies that pay very little tax in this country. They are some of the most profitable companies on the planet, especially in times of higher oil prices following the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East. But here we have these liabilities.</p><p>Minister, can I ask you to take this on notice because I'm not sure if you'll have the information today. If you go to NOPSEMA's website, where they talk about their decommissioning strategy plan and performance, they have a decommissioning research strategy. Basically, they supply a flowchart that's pretty simple to follow and they have targets for decommissioning. By 2021 they were hoping that all oil and gas companies with depleted fields in Australia, the titleholders of those fields, would have appropriate plans for decommissioning and be completing these in a timely manner. Titleholders are aware of their decommissioning requirements—so NOPSEMA has been working with oil and gas companies to make sure they are aware of these requirements, and that's why they should be on their balance sheets. But by the end of this year—we're nearly there—coincidentally they need to have supplied plans for the abandonment of their wells and these oilfields. Decommissioning plans are supposed to be in place for non-operating structures, equipment and property which are associated with depleted oil and gas fields. Moored or tethered buoyant infrastructure needs to be removed within 12 months of ceasing operations. So, once these plans are given to NOPSEMA this year, they have 12 months to go out there and spend the money to remove this technology and this infrastructure.</p><p>Then by 2025 wells that were plugged and closed within three years of permanently ceasing production need all structural equipment and property to be removed.</p><p>For the domestic act offshore oil and gas carbon capture and storage, which is not dealt with in this bill, unless those same structures are going to be used to also apply for licences to import carbon dioxide, we have a situation here where companies can avoid their liability by applying for a licence to use these subsidies to use these subsea structures to sequester carbon. Even if they apply for a licence and they don't manage to get some dirty CO2 from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, the Timor Sea or wherever it happens, we have a situation where—and I'm very concerned about this for the domestic legislation as well—this is actually a de facto strategy to avoid their liabilities. How convenient that we are dealing with this legislation just a few months out from when they are supposed to be providing the final details to NOPSEMA. Minister, can you answer this question today, and if you can't please take it on notice: how many of these project that are applying to import carbon dioxide—and if you know domestically how many of the seven areas that have now been awarded to oil and gas companies to pursue carbon capture and storage—are using depleted oilfields that had liabilities under these decommissioning plans?</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Senator Whish-Wilson, as I've indicated in response to your last two questions, I don't have that information at hand. It is quite detailed, and I will say, of course, that because there is presently no arrangement for the importation of CO2, subject to the passage of this bill, the four projects that I referred to are not formally before the government because that pre-empts the decision that we are presently contemplating here in the chamber.</p><p>More generally, the government is aware that there need to be robust protocols in place for carbon capture, use and storage, and in the last budget provided $12 million to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. The review has commenced, and it seeks to ensure that the regime for offshore CCS appropriately manages risks both in the marine environment and the inherent risks around workplace health and safety. The review will identify opportunities to more effectively plan for and regulate the decommissioning of offshore CCS projects. I know that is a different question to the one you asked me earlier, but it is relevant more generally to the line of questioning you are pursuing. The review will also look at regulatory requirements relating to long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide. There will also be an examination of opportunities for greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for projects of this kind in Commonwealth waters, and that review is presently underway and is being led by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. I let you know this because you are asking, in the general, questions about the interaction between the proposed permitting arrangement here and other arrangements that are in place for existing offshore oil and gas projects and, amongst other things, those are questions that could be considered as part of this broader process of ensuring we've got appropriate regulatory arrangements for offshore activity.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-10.19.1):
- > *That the question be put.*
- In other words, they voted against ending the debate in order to speed things along.
-
-
|