Two major unions covering thousands of working in the offshore energy sector have called for greater clarity and protection for producers, accusing activists of making gas “the new coal”, and sounding the alarm on the prospects for flow-on effects to onshore gas and wind projects.

The Australian Workers Union and the Maritime Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (MUA), under the banner of their joint union the Offshore Alliance, said despite a common interest in increasing gas supply – shared by workers, investors, producers, exporters and users – new gas developments had attracted rising acrimony.

In a submission to the Federal Government’s review of consultation requirements for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage approvals, the OA said activists have sought to make gas the ‘new coal’ - failing to demonstrate an understanding of the practical need for gas well into the future.

“Among a suite of tactics intended to delegitimise the sector is litigation on consultation prerequisites to securing regulatory approval for new offshore developments,” the submission said.

“High-profile cases have succeeded in complicating and delaying the Scarborough and Barossa developments.

“This litigation has had a direct and negative impact on thousands of AWU and Offshore Alliance members who work in the sector, fueling prolonged uncertainty and placing both short and long-term job opportunities at risk.

“Delays to construction of the Barossa pipeline are just the latest chapter – leaving hundreds of Offshore Alliance members in limbo as the matter played out in court.

“AWU and Offshore Alliance members rely on new offshore gas developments in numerous ways. Firstly, to provide well-paid union jobs… Second, these developments ensure the long-term job security of AWU and Offshore Alliance members in processing gas.  For instance, hundreds of Offshore Alliance members are engaged on the Shell Prelude floating LNG facility, where gas extracted from the Crux field will be processed once the area is developed.

“Third, thousands of AWU members engaged in gas-consuming industries ultimately rely on new developments to continue operating.”

Disruption to offshore gas development was a major concern, “but the AWU notes the potential for precedents established through such litigation to extend to proposed onshore gas and offshore wind developments”.

“This would expose the energy transition – and tens of thousands of additional workers – to still greater uncertainty.

“The delays and uncertainty associated with activist litigation around consultation requirements are ultimately attributable to weaknesses in the approvals regime.

“The AWU and the Offshore Alliance strongly believe that major infrastructure potentially impinging on community interests, including the interests of Traditional Owners, must undergo thorough and rigorous consultation.

“We also share the Commonwealth’s views that such outreach should be targeted, effective, meaningful and genuine.

“However, in our submission, litigation ostensibly concerned with defective consultation, but with the overarching objective of disrupting or derailing development entirely, amounts to bad faith action to exploit deficiency in the regime.

“The impact of the resulting delays on AWU and Offshore Alliance members, and Australia’s energy and industrial outlook, is unacceptable and amendments must be made.”

In its recommendations, the OA submission said the approval regime should:

• Be amended to prescribe a narrower and more certain definition of ‘relevant persons’ that must be consulted.
• Prescribe definite, limited timeframes that developers must afford businesses, NGOs and individuals to engage in a consultation process. NOPSEMA should be empowered to extend these limits in exceptional circumstances.
• Not require a titleholder to act on correspondence from relevant persons received after consultation has ceased and an environmental plan has been submitted.

In relation to the role of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the OA submission said NOPSEMA should develop detailed guidelines addressing what constitutes ‘sufficient information’ in relation to common types of development proposals.

Return to eNews