Background
The Wilderness Society sought judicial review of NOPSEMA’s May 2025 decision accepting Santos WA Northwest Pty Ltd’s environment plan for operations and cessation-of-production preservation activities at the Reindeer wellhead platform and the offshore section of the Devil Creek gas pipeline, off Western Australia.
The plan contemplated continued operations, preservation after production ceased, and inspection, maintenance, monitoring and repair. It identified possible later repurposing or decommissioning, but stated that decommissioning would be addressed in a subsequent environment plan. The Wilderness Society argued that Santos was required to maintain financial assurance for eventual decommissioning costs before NOPSEMA could accept the plan.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Abraham dismissed the application. Section 571(2) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and regulation 16 of the Environment Regulations require financial assurance in relation to the particular petroleum activity for which an environment plan seeks approval; they do not require assurance for every possible future activity under the title.
NOPSEMA had concluded that decommissioning was outside the Reindeer plan’s scope, and that finding was not challenged. Because decommissioning was not the activity submitted for approval, NOPSEMA was not required to include decommissioning costs when assessing Santos’s financial assurance for this plan. The Court also rejected the Wilderness Society’s attempt, raised in reply, to contend that the plan itself covered decommissioning.
Key Takeaways
- Financial assurance under s 571(2) is assessed by reference to the activity covered by the environment plan.
- An environment plan may address petroleum activities in separate stages over a project’s life.
- References to possible future decommissioning and preparatory planning do not make decommissioning an approved activity under the plan.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that NOPSEMA’s financial-assurance assessment is activity-specific, rather than a requirement to secure the full cost of future decommissioning whenever a titleholder seeks approval for another offshore activity.
For judicial-review challenges, the case also underscores the importance of directly challenging the regulator’s characterisation of the activity and of advancing the pleaded case in chief, rather than introducing a materially different case in reply.