3.1
As indicated in Chapter 2, and noted by many submitters and witnesses, the body of science and research into the impacts of seismic sound exposure is variable and incomplete.
3.2
Professor Robert McCauley from the Centre for Marine Science and Technology at Curtin University (CMST) submitted that consequently there is no thorough understanding of the environmental risks of marine seismic surveying.
3.3
Greenpeace Australia Pacific added that the scientific limitations lead to ineffective management of the environmental risks and impacts:
… there has not been enough research into the environmental impacts of seismic testing to assure with any degree of confidence that the probabilities of risk and magnitude of impacts are acceptable and managed.
3.4
Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) commented that stakeholders are placed 'in a position of arguing their case through reference to this incomplete body of science' and the regulator is placed 'in the position of arbitrating and interpreting the science'.
3.5
Many submitters and witnesses considered that expanding the current evidence base would promote informed stakeholder engagement, environmental impact assessment (EIA), and the effective management of impacts on marine animals and the marine environment.
3.6
This chapter examines some research priorities and challenges to improving the current evidence base. It also discusses marine users' interpretation and application of the existing science.
Research priorities
3.7
Submitters and witnesses identified population level and broader ecological impacts, and cumulative seismic signal exposure, as two areas in which further research is more immediately required.
Population level and broader ecological impacts
3.8
Several organisations and individuals noted recent or ongoing studies into the impacts of seismic signal exposure on individual species. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania (IMAS) argued that these types of studies should be increased and expanded to broader studies that are conducted over longer periods of time:
[This would] quantify the ability for individuals to recover from exposure and whether damage from exposure reduces individual fitness enough to affect the population. Once this level of understanding is achieved, analysing the population level impacts of multiple species will provide an understanding of the effects of surveys at an ecosystem level, at which point truly evidence-based regulation and decision-making will be possible.
3.9
Dr Mark Meekan from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) noted that the North West Shoals to Shore Research Program (see Chapter 2) includes a two-year study of the impact of seismic sound exposure on pearl oysters: 'we're taking a very deep dive into the physiology, the genetics and the morphology of those animals'.
3.10
However, Professor Jayson Semmens from IMAS said that a study over two years is still a small timescale and, generally, a much longer timeframe is necessary to understand population and ecosystem level impacts:
120 days is the most we did. AIMS are doing slightly longer than that for pearl oysters, but it's still a small timescale. We don't know then what it means for the population. If those animals are out there and they're exposed over the next five to 10 years, will that change how the population works? There are biological processes and linkages. Will it change the ecosystem? We need much longer timescales than we're looking at. We need multiple years to do that.
3.11
Dr Andrew Carroll from Geoscience Australia agreed that laboratory and field studies have focussed on short‑term impacts, with long-term consequences of an identified impact rarely investigated: 'That can just be due to simple constraints … or the inherent issues that you have doing these types of large‑scale studies over a long period of time'.
3.12
The International Association of Geophysical Contractors identified some of these constraints and issues in field-based studies:
Examining the effects of seismic surveys on wild fish populations over time is inherently difficult and expensive to execute properly, requiring substantial investment of time and resources to monitor how the population may or may not respond to survey activity. Further complications stem from obtaining a survey vessel to perform the experiment. Moreover, appropriate experimental controls can be difficult to establish in wild populations.
3.13
Dr Carroll advised that research is slowly evolving to address population effects but 'at this stage it's not as advanced as to be able to say, "This is an ecosystem-level impact that an activity might have"'.
3.14
His colleague Dr Trevor Dhu said that one challenging factor for the conduct of ecological studies is a lack of baseline information to ensure that 'we … [understand] an ecological system prior to actually undertaking the study itself'.
3.15
The committee notes evidence from the commercial fishing industry that a lack of baseline data is also problematic for fishers when attempting to quantify the extent of their economic loss following a marine seismic survey.
Cumulative seismic signal exposure
3.16
Some submitters and witnesses expressed concern about the lack of scientific research into the impacts of cumulative seismic signal exposure. Mrs Katherine Winchester from the Northern Territory Seafood Council (NTSC), for example, specifically referenced the situation of spatially proximate marine seismic surveys:
Over the years we've had numerous seismic testing surveys done in the same locations. Some areas have had seismic surveys at least three different times, and, for our members, the concerns are to understand what those impacts are on the ecosystem not just on the species that we're catching.
3.17
Ms Pauline Nolle, a rock lobster fisher in the Otway Basin, similarly highlighted that, as this concern has not been investigated, it is not taken into consideration in the environmental approval process:
Cumulative impacts of seismic testing are simply not addressed, not even by the Regulator who assesses the compliance of individual Environmental Plans [EPs]. These holes (a comprehensive and 'universal' expression of risk appetite and tolerance, management of residual risk and recognition and assessment of cumulative impact) in the regulatory system should be reviewed.
3.18
The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) acknowledged concerns that 'there is not enough research into the impacts of seismic' and that 'the research is inadequate'.
3.19
NOPSEMA submitted that there will always be limitations in scientific knowledge but emphasised that this knowledge is increasing and must be appropriately taken into consideration:
It is very important to apply the science appropriately to [EIA], recognise the limitations of the science and take a precautionary approach when there is scientific uncertainty in order to build confidence in management and regulatory outcomes.
3.20
NOPSEMA recognised that 'there are some key data gathering and collaborative research opportunities to further improve our understanding and potentially reduce the levels of the precautionary activity management and decision-making currently occurring', including:
long term or cumulative effects of noise disturbance on animals;
ecological consequences of impacts to larval stages of commercially important species;
robust baseline data to enable post survey monitoring to allow assessment of management effectiveness for potentially impacted species;
greater understanding of the cause and effect relationships and the threshold levels for causing different effects on commercially important invertebrates and the implications of these effects to relevant fisheries; and
collaborative, inter-disciplinary research to investigate population level impacts of anthropogenic noise on fish and fisheries.
Committee view
3.21
The committee agrees that an improved evidence base would benefit stakeholders, EIAs and the management of impacts from seismic signal exposure to fisheries and the marine environment.
3.22
The committee accepts that there is a need to increase the number and length of individual species studies to determine baseline information that can support a better understanding of population and ecological impacts, as well as cumulative impacts, from seismic signal exposure.
3.23
The committee is encouraged to hear that research studies are heading in this direction and considers that the Australian Government could enhance this momentum by supporting research studies that target identified knowledge gaps.
3.24
The committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to funding research studies that aim to identify and evaluate the impacts of seismic testing on individual species, including commercially and ecologically important marine species, to provide baseline information that can be used to build on the existing knowledge base.
Challenges to improving the current evidence base
3.25
Several submitters and witnesses identified challenges to improving the current evidence base, including methodological and funding obstacles.
3.26
Geoscience Australia, for example, submitted that it is difficult to compare studies as different metrics and methods are used to quantify sound exposure:
Until standardisation is improved, research findings on the effects of airguns and other sound sources in the marine environment will only apply to individual studies, and the general applicability of these studies to other marine seismic surveys, regions or taxa will remain questionable.
3.27
Geoscience Australia also highlighted that there are disparities between laboratory and field studies, which can lead to misinterpretation and misuse of research findings in EIAs:
One of the most critical issues of applying science outputs to environmental impact assessment is the misinterpretation and misuse of research. There is currently a disparity between results obtained in the field, in which biological responses can be difficult to detect in combination with natural environmental variability, and results obtained from the laboratory, in which exposure treatments or behavioural responses may be unrealistic.
3.28
IMAS emphasised the superiority of field studies where findings are translatable to real‑life exposure. Professor McCauley also supported this approach, commencing with small-scale studies that aim to fully explain impact mechanisms before proceeding to undertake large-scale experiments:
Running an experiment where one does not have a reasonable understanding of impact mechanisms a-priori has a strong likelihood of leaving as many questions unanswered as answered … By starting small and focussing on what it is about air gun seismic signals that creates physiological trauma in small fauna, it may even be possible to circumvent the entire issue of widespread environmental impacts of seismic by suggesting, testing and implementing different seismic signal types, without the need for large‑scale experiments.
Funding obstacles
3.29
Scientists and researchers highlighted that research studies can also be frustrated by a lack of funding. IMAS pointed out that field-based research is expensive: 'commercial arrays cost [in] the order of $100,000s per day or require the coordination of research activities with seismic survey operations'.
3.30
Ms Jody Williams representing The Wilderness Society echoed this advice and provided two examples of where funding difficulties have been overcome by collaborations between researchers and the offshore petroleum industry:
The research program that's presently being done by [AIMS] in the North West Shelf, in the north-west of Western Australia, is being funded by the oil and gas industry to the tune of 75 per cent. I think it's now a $25 million research program … The research program in the Great Australian Bight, the [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)] one, was to the tune of $20 million … IMAS makes it clear in its submission that one of the limitations on research is available funding for research—and the cost of doing real-life, proper seismic testing.
3.31
Mr Andrew McConville from the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) estimated that its members have invested in excess of $40 million in research over the past 10 years:
In 2008 there was an IMAS study to the tune of about $12 million, there was a behavioural response study of $15 million and then, of course, there's the work of AIMS as well. From other members, there was a contribution of $14 million to the AIMS research on the North West Shoals and another $6.5 million contributing to the AIMS research … and that's across only a few companies.
3.32
The Norwood Resource's Mr John Hughes pointed out that 'in Canada a levy is applied and that it goes to research'.
3.33
APPEA's Mr McConville reiterated the industry's commitment to understanding marine noise and its willingness to work toward addressing knowledge gaps:
Our industry works globally to consider the issues of marine noise, as it believes substantial research funding programs to be proactive in improving the level of scientific knowledge around underwater sound. If there are significant gaps in research, industry is very committed and continues to work together with all stakeholders to address these gaps.
3.34
The committee notes the comments from IMAS that funding limitations have also restricted research studies to certain types of marine fauna:
… studies have been driven by funding from the relevant fishing industries meaning that other ecologically important species without fishery interests may go unstudied. It also means that funding resources may disproportionately go to the research of certain animals (e.g. the historic funding of extensive research into marine mammals) at the expense of others.
Offshore petroleum industry levy
3.35
Several submitters and witnesses argued that the offshore petroleum industry should be contributing more to the development of the evidence-base. In this respect, the commercial fishing industry considered that it is disproportionately responsible for funding the research. Ms Marilyn Shea from the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) said, for example:
… the commercial fishing industry has a compulsory funding contribution to the [Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)] ... Our [research] contribution far exceeds our multibillion-dollar counterparts in the offshore oil, gas and seismic industry … [We need] to have a fair, open and transparent compulsory levy from the offshore oil, gas and seismic industry to contribute towards these research black holes.
3.36
The Mayor of King Island, Mrs Julianne Arnold, expressed a similar view when she said that 'it is really important that [the] scientific knowledge gap be closed … It is up to the people who are going to be taking benefits from [seismic surveying] to do that sort of research'.
3.37
APPEA representative Mr McConville acknowledged that there is no compulsory funding by the offshore petroleum industry toward research on the impacts of seismic signal exposure. However, he emphasised that the industry does 'significantly and heavily' invest in research through collaborations and in the preparation of EPs.
3.38
Other witnesses emphasised that any financial contribution from offshore petroleum companies would need to be directed toward 'independent science'. For example, Mr Adrian Meder from the Australian Marine Conservation Society said that these companies should 'as a due course of operating … be expected to resource, and resource very independently, the research that would be necessary to demonstrate that they're operating in a safe manner'.
3.39
Professor Semmens noted however that scientists do not feel pressured or influenced by the organisations that fund research studies: 'there's no-one trying to influence what we're doing, but people are very keen to have their opinions heard'.
3.40
The committee notes a suggestion from IMAS that research capacity could be enhanced by developing larger scale research infrastructure—such as a Collaborative Research Centre focussing on marine noise pollution or a seismic survey sub‑program within the FRDC:
Another potential avenue for facilitating the research capacity necessary to make significant contributions to the understanding of seismic surveys, include the development of larger scale research infrastructure, such as an impact of marine noise mitigation Collaborative Research Centre … and a seismic survey sub-program within the Fisheries Research Development Corporation … given many of the current potential issues being examined are related to interactions between the two types of industries. Moving beyond the investigation of single species in short-term projects to long‑term projects that examine populations of multiple species will be essential to developing the ecosystem level understanding required to adequately manage any environmental impacts of seismic surveying, along with the competing interests of fisheries and oil and gas exploration.
Good Standing Agreements
3.41
Good Standing Agreements (GSAs) are agreements between offshore petroleum companies and Joint Authorities that enable a company to maintain its 'good standing' with the authority if a petroleum exploration permit (see Chapter 4) is cancelled or expires with certain unfulfilled conditions.
3.42
Under a GSA, offshore petroleum companies can nominate and undertake a regional study which is of broad relevance to the industry (such as the North West Shoals to Shore Research Program (see Chapter 2)).
3.43
The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) highlighted however that the oil and gas companies manage all GSA funds:
The Australian Government does not hold or manage GSA funds, and there is no mechanism for research agencies to apply direct to Government for GSA funding.
3.44
The committee notes the suggestion from Mr Johnathon Davey from SIV that GSA funds could be better leveraged to facilitate research into the potential impacts of seismic testing. GSA funding has only once (perhaps twice) been used for this purpose.
3.45
The committee further notes a submission from IMAS that it is time to review the research funding facilitated by the use of GSA arrangements:
While the impact on marine invertebrates has begun to receive some attention, the means of securing funding, particularly regarding the distribution of ‘Good Standing’ funds by the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator … within this field requires review.
Committee view
3.46
The committee acknowledges that there are a number of challenges to improving the current evidence base, including a lack of funding for research.
3.47
The committee heard that funding is provided from a number of sources, such as government, industry and academic bodies. However, this funding is study specific and therefore species specific. In the committee's view, future research should have a more certain funding basis and be able to encompass a wider range of marine animals and organisms, as well as accommodate the potential for long-term studies. The committee notes that there are concerns about the equity of current research contributions and, in assessing alternative means to more permanently and broadly fund research, contributions from oil and gas companies, including a levy, should be specifically considered.
3.48
The committee recommends that the Australian Government actively consider a levy on oil and gas companies that conduct offshore seismic activities to fund research into the impacts of seismic testing on marine animals and the marine environment.
3.49
The committee notes that GSA arrangements have recently been used to support a well-regarded research study into the impacts of exposure to seismic sound on target species (North West Shoals to Shore Research Program). The committee considers that there is scope to more effectively use the GSA arrangements to advance the evidence base.
3.50
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the Good Standing Agreements mechanism with a view to more effectively using those arrangements to advance research into the impacts of offshore seismic testing on marine animals, including commercial fish species, and the marine environment.
Individual and collaborative research
3.51
Throughout the inquiry, submitters and witnesses referenced individual research studies, with many urging that future research into the impacts of seismic survey exposure should be conducted in a more collaborative and multi-disciplinary manner.
3.52
The Australian Academy of Science, for example, noted a recent collaboration by Geoscience Australia, the CSIRO and Curtin University which expressed the following view:
An integrated multidisciplinary approach to manipulative and in situ studies is the most effective way to establish impact thresholds in the context of realistic exposure levels.
3.53
Professor McCauley agreed with this approach, considering that no one person or group has all the necessary expertise:
I've been running experiments since 1996. I tend to do the acoustics and the experimental design, and I'm very good at that and very good in the field. CSIRO have approached me about prawns. I know nothing about prawns—I know nothing about prawn physiology—but I could design a very good experiment … I'd need physiologists and people who have experience with prawns, who know the ins and outs of when prawns breed, how they behave, the types of bottoms they live on and all that sort of stuff. You need those people as well as the people who can run the experiment.
3.54
Similarly, Dr Dhu from Geoscience Australia explained:
… using science that bridges laboratory experiments through to small‑scale field studies through to commercial-scale field studies is going to be critical to really understanding many of these issues. But, as importantly if not more importantly, is the co-designed nature—specifically surveys for which, as early as possible in their conception, as early as possible in the process of understanding and designing a research program, as many stakeholders as possible are actually at the table, so as many perspectives, concerns and questions as possible are considered in the design of future research and that is used to build a consensus understanding of what the research itself is saying.
3.55
Representatives from AIMS stated that properly co-designing and resourcing a study makes it possible to obtain meaningful results within a reasonable timeframe:
It's entirely possible to answer well-crafted and well-chosen questions that are highly relevant to the industry … Our North-West Shoals to Shore Research Program and the process we went through shows exactly how it can be done. First off, it was well-resourced. Second, we started a process of consultation with the industry and all stakeholders as the basis of our work.
3.56
Scientific research plays an important role in informing the effective management of Australia's offshore environment. DISER advised that the Australian Government is committed to ensuring that publicly available, peer‑reviewed research is considered in policy development and regulatory assessments, an approach that is implemented by NOPSEMA:
NOPSEMA … ensures that the latest published peer reviewed science is applied in an appropriate and relevant way during assessment of [EPs] and during regulatory decision making.
3.57
The regulator advised that it not only draws on published peer-reviewed literature but also actively seeks to remain informed of the latest research and to influence the research agenda toward addressing priority research questions.
3.58
DISER noted that the regulator publishes guidance notes across a range of topics, including EP assessment, to convey up-to-date information and NOPSEMA's expectations to industry and stakeholders.
3.59
The committee notes that NOPSEMA explicitly supported the development of a collaborative research framework. Dr Christine Lamont, Chief Environmental Scientist, said:
… what we would be promoting for industry to do is working on a collaborative approach to conducting the research so that you can get a much better result across the industry, as opposed to what's happening now, which is individual companies or individual agencies undertaking research in isolation, essentially.
Committee view
3.60
The committee considers that some research challenges could be mitigated by collaborative studies that capitalise on all stakeholders' expertise and resources. The committee notes that such an approach would improve the evidence base, the quality of EIAs and stakeholder relations.
3.61
In particular, the committee notes the suggestion to create larger scale research capability that operates for the benefit of all marine users, such as the Collaborative Research Centre suggested by IMAS (see paragraph 3.40). The committee agrees that this would require a broad mandate in order to cover a range of objectives and be appropriately funded, including, potentially, through contributions from the relevant industries.
3.62
The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish and fund a larger-scale research capability to continually improve the evidence base with respect to environmental marine impacts, including impacts from seismic signal exposure. This capability should utilise a multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach to achieve its objectives.
Interpretation and application of the science
3.63
A number of submitters and witnesses commented on the manner in which scientific research is interpreted and applied in EIAs. Several argued that the science is intentionally misrepresented and/or 'cherry picked'. The Norwood Resource submitted, for example:
… the oft-quoted seismic source levels of 250–260dB claimed by environmental groups are never experienced in the vicinity of seismic arrays with values in the range of 228–242dB being more typical. Due to the logarithmic scale of decibels, these oft-quoted values mean that the pressure levels experienced in the vicinity of seismic arrays are 8–16 times less than the theoretical models based on all the array elements occupying the same position in space (which, of course, is impossible) … These groups exaggerate the source levels in their objective to spread fear and confusion regarding the perceived impacts of seismic surveys.
3.64
Similarly, Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) Chief Executive Mr Julian Harrington said that contradictions among studies allow for the selective use of research findings:
In 2016 IMAS research identified mortality events in scallops after being exposed to the sources of sound that we're talking about. About two weeks later … Geoscience Australia research was completed, and it showed no definitive impact on scallops from exposure to seismic surveys. If you're proposing to do a seismic survey, you're not going to use the research that suggests there may well be mortality events; you're going to selectively use the research that aims to identify that what you're doing is not going to have an impact.
3.65
Mrs Julianne Arnold representing the King Island Council described one instance where apparently irrelevant research was provided:
[One company] provided some research … but none of it relates to our fisheries or specifically to our areas … Some of the research that I've read and found shows quite clearly that different fisheries are impacted differently, and different species are impacted differently. So I do think that it's disingenuous to have research coming from the North Atlantic, potentially, and deciding that that affects the Australian fisheries. But I have seen no research that I would be happy to stand in front of our crayfishermen with and say, 'We don't have a problem'.
3.66
The committee notes the following comment from Professor McCauley in relation to arguments concerning the interpretation and application of research studies:
It is easy for groups with vested interests to 'choose a side' when … contradictions occur, but this is a short-sighted approach. These seemingly contradictory studies can each be correct and are enlightening as they highlight potential impact mechanisms, which we do not fully understand.
Offshore Tasmania and Victoria
3.67
A number of stakeholders specifically questioned offshore petroleum companies' response to the FRDC research project which examined commercial scallop and southern rock lobster fisheries (see Chapter 2). For example, TSIC and SIV submitted that that the offshore petroleum industry does not accept the validity of this research or that there might be potential impacts from their seismic activities.
3.68
The Scallop Fishermen's Association of Tasmania (SFAT) referenced Beach Energy Limited's (Beach Energy) 2020 proposal to conduct a 3D seismic survey in the Bass Basin offshore Tasmania and Victoria (Figure 3.1), which SFAT stated is close to lucrative fishing grounds near King Island.
3.69
Long-serving member of SFAT Mr Jonathan Hammond argued that Beach Energy commissioned its 'own independent science companies to give them modelling … as to all the reasons why [the proposed survey] won't kill the scallops', while disregarding the findings of the FRDC research project:
… the FRDC project [is] generally accepted worldwide [as] the benchmark...of the research into the damage that seismic testing does to rock lobster, scallops, all of those sorts of things; however, Beach Energy don't mention any of that in their consultation. They've just gone and got some fresh modelling done and, provided that NOPSEMA approves that, they're free to go and get on with the job.
3.70
In response, Mr Robert Malinauskas from Beach Energy contended that subsequent experiments and studies have found no evidence to support the findings of the FRDC research project. He added that Beach Energy had commissioned 'a globally recognised expert and leader in the field' to undertake the modelling:
This modelling used the latest scientific understanding on thresholds for various receptors including bivalves and applied methodologies accepted by NOPSEMA. Beach will be conducting sound recording during its proposed survey to remove any stakeholder doubt on the modelling.
Understanding the science and operational aspects
3.71
Some submitters suggested that the science is genuinely misunderstood—such as in the specialised area of noise assessment or due to operational considerations. Beach Energy, for example, submitted that academic and stakeholder disagreement is 'most frequently due to a lack of understanding of the seismic method and the site-specific variables involved in making a prediction of environmental impact'.
3.72
Ms Linda French, Community Manager for Beach Energy, also explained:
When it comes to the issues around confusion or different perspectives … the truth is we often experience different levels of engagement … There are some stakeholders that we consult with who, frankly, don't want to understand the depth of information to inform themselves and others that generously give us their time to sit and discuss things thoroughly, such as the scallop sector.
3.73
APPEA submitted that some of the tension between the offshore petroleum and commercial fishing industries could be diffused by increased understanding of each other's operations. In this regard, the peak body noted a current initiative to develop guidance notes that:
… will identify the potential impacts to cetaceans and finfish from seismic noise, will define acceptable levels of noise impacts and identify control measures that could be used to reduce impacts as they relate to cetaceans and finfish.
3.74
APPEA noted that the FRDC and WAFIC are also developing a set of 'Fisheries profiles' to provide additional information about fisheries, including the type of fish targeted, specifics of the fishery, fishing seasons, information requirements, catch rates, and more: 'This will hopefully also assist petroleum operators identify relevant fisheries for the purpose of data-driven, evidence‑based decisions'.
3.75
The CSIRO noted that state fisheries agencies in two jurisdictions—Western Australia and Victoria—have provided some guidance on general standards and protocols to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts of seismic signal exposure:
These set out the potential ecological, economic and social impacts to fisheries and identify mitigating activities that can be implemented as well as appropriate consultation pathways with fisheries management agencies.
Efforts have also been placed into developing processes and policies to minimise impacts to both fisheries and oil and gas exploration business and operational activities with the view to improve relationships and shared understanding of the potential impacts … Key improvements around information access, exchange of information, co‐development and co‐revision of policies and processes and building of relationships have been identified as essential for minimising impacts across the two industries.
3.76
NOPSEMA recognised that the misinterpretation and misuse of research presents challenges for EIAs, industry social licence and regulation:
The outputs of research publications can be taken out of context, misinterpreted, selectively used to support a desired outcome, misapplied or inappropriately extrapolated to other species and locations when conducting EIA.
3.77
NOPSEMA submitted that 'the gap between perception and reality' has also been distorted by the media, which has led to unnecessarily high levels of public concern:
Neither the extreme position of 'terrible harm', nor the extreme position of 'no harm' from seismic surveys is accurate. The true environmental impact from well managed seismic surveys lies somewhere in between. Making extreme and inaccurate claims creates a challenge for establishing a consistent, evidence-based understanding of the impacts from seismic surveys on the marine environment across a broad audience.
3.78
NOPSEMA went on to say that a deep dive into the scientific literature shows that the broader, long-term ecological impacts of seismic signal exposure are not known:
Where physiological effects have been observed, implications at an ecologically meaningful level are unknown or untested, or the experimental design is not representative of real world exposures. While a number of studies have found lower level impacts in specific receptors, there is often no link with long term impacts on survivability and no clear ecological consequences from these impacts.
Committee view
3.79
The committee recognises that disparities or contradictions among research findings can create problems in understanding and applying research findings. They can also exacerbate tensions among stakeholders.
3.80
In the committee's view, a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach to research studies that involves all relevant parties—including those with technical, operational and scientific expertise—will alleviate some of these tensions (see Recommendation 8).
3.81
The committee notes that some stakeholders are taking individual action to increase understanding of their industries. The committee strongly supports these actions as a means of facilitating co-existence and promoting improved environmental outcomes. The committee encourages the petroleum industry to support further independent, multi-disciplinary research projects that build on the existing knowledge base.
Rehabilitation and compensation funds
3.82
Some submitters and witnesses suggested that, in addition to research contributions, offshore oil and gas companies should be required to contribute toward environmental rehabilitation and compensation for short and long‑term impacts of seismic activities.
3.83
SIV representative Mr Davey stated that a rehabilitation fund would help to address a perceived failure of the offshore petroleum industry to take responsibility for impacts arising from their seismic activities:
Rather than them doing a seismic survey and saying, 'Oops, we didn't find anything', packing up the ship and moving on and finding the next area to do a seismic exploration on, we want to know that there is money sitting in a bank somewhere so that, should industry turn around and put in a claim for compensation because catch rates drop out, fish start floating—who knows? There is nothing at the moment that says they have to keep money for potential impacts down the track.
3.84
Ms Nolle argued that, onshore, petroleum exploration companies would be required to 'make good' any damage:
If exploration of this nature occurred on land and had a sub-lethal impact on the balance & immune systems of cows/sheep and left their pasture damaged a rehabilitation bond could and would be used to compensate the farmer and restore the land. But the maritime environment has no such protection. The general archaic expectation is that any (marine) primary producer should move their harvesting operation elsewhere and that 'Mother Nature' and 'Father Time' will repair any damage (despite the lack of any scientific evidence to prove that this is indeed the case).
3.85
The Commonwealth Fisheries Association backed calls for offshore petroleum exploration companies to take more responsibility for monitoring, mitigating and, where necessary, compensating for environmental impacts:
Where environmental impacts emerge, there is no adequate approach to remediation, mitigation or compensation … The burden of adjustment and mitigation is transferred to the commercial fishing industry while environmental recovery is taking place.
Compensation for the commercial fishing industry
3.86
The commercial fishing industry drew attention to the ways in which marine seismic surveying can affect fishers. The NTSC, for example, broadly noted: time and resources required for regulatory consultations; loss of access to fishing grounds; loss of markets due to loss of catch; and personal well-being.
3.87
The Chair of SFAT, Mr Graham Hammond, described the devastating impact of one survey over his crab and scallop fishery:
… on the west coast I was going along pulling my crab gear off the continental slope—it's not a very big area. The seismic ship went up and down straight over the top of the crab grounds and those crab grounds are just recovering now; it's taken 10 years. It absolutely massacred the place. At that point in time when it first started, 10 years ago, we had an oversize on the king crab... We had lots—like 10 kilo of king crab on the bottom, everywhere. After this seismic activity, within 18 months there was none—there were no big king crab and very few other king crab. We are still fishing it and it is just now slowly coming back, but the fishery is still very weak. It was decimated something fierce... We did not realise at the time that this operation is a slow killer. You can go back and look after the seismic ship has gone through and you will see a little dead shell here and there and think, 'It's not too bad, we've escaped.' If you go back a couple of months later and have another look, you will see a little more dead shell and think, 'It looks like we might have got out of it.' But if you go back three or four months later, you will see that we did not get out of it. It annihilated a whole ocean.
3.88
The NTSC argued that there needs to be better acknowledgement of the impacts of marine seismic surveying on commercial fishers.
Establishing the extent of economic loss
3.89
As mentioned above, several submitters and witnesses supported compensation for commercial fishers who are financially affected by the conduct of marine seismic surveying over established fisheries. NPF Industry Pty Ltd, for example, suggested:
An adjustment process or make good arrangement consistently applied and assessed across all environment plans is appropriate where disruptions to fishing activities takes place... It is completely unacceptable for fishers' actual and potential losses not to be recognised, assessed and financially compensated.
3.90
However, participants conceded that it can be difficult to determine the extent to which commercial fishers' interests have been affected. The CSIRO, for example, noted that 'the vast majority of studies assessing the impacts of sound generated by geophysical surveys on fishery catches have been conducted in areas outside of Australia'. Further, the few Australian studies that have been conducted have had variable and, in some cases, contradictory results.
3.91
Further, Geoscience Australia argued that it is impossible to attribute reduced catch rates to seismic surveying as there are multiple relevant factors which could also lead to catch reductions:
A change in catch rate may reflect a number of physical, behavioural, or physiological responses due to airgun operations, including mortality, sound avoidance, decreased bait attraction, or reduced fitness. However, to date there has been no direct association between these potential responses and a reduced catch rate following a seismic survey.
3.92
Mr Davey representing SIV conceded 'there is anecdotal evidence from our fishers that their catch rates decline after fishing behind or after a seismic survey'. However:
In terms of the work that is needed to be done to analyse that and then draw it back to the presence of a seismic survey, it comes back to the question of what other environmental factors have been through that area and what other environmental processes have had some level of impact as well. By the time we do that work, and with the cost of doing that work, it ends up at the point where it's not viable to actually identify one way or another what has been the impact.
3.93
Ms Kirsten Rough from ASBTIA said that it is 'very difficult' to pinpoint causality as there are no measuring and monitoring requirements:
...it is very difficult to scientifically say and prove that there has been an impact when there is no requirement to measure what's there before the seismic survey starts and what's happening during the seismic survey process and to monitor the recovery of any changes that occur, or are observed, after the boats leave.
3.94
WAFIC's Ms Shea contended unequivocally that the anecdotal evidence speaks for itself:
… catch per unit effort comparisons over a 10-year period have actually shown proof, through science and fact, that these seismic surveys have directly impacted our commercial catching capacity ... Very little of our anecdotal information—which is strong, historical on-the-water experience—is treated with respect by offshore proponents, because they don't view it as being science.
3.95
Ms Eleanor Lawless from the Protect Our Coast Alliance related similar comments from a fisher on the New South Wales coast:
Reduced catch rates of 40 per cent to 80 per cent have been recorded near seismic surveys. Jason Nunn … [who] is the owner of Fisherman's Warehouse at Lake Macquarie, said that, after the 2004 round of seismic testing, nobody caught a fish at the Lake Macquarie big fishing tournament and that, following that, there [were] very few fish caught—including sharks, even on the outer reefs. To quote Mr Nunn: 'It affected the commercial industry terribly, and that's what everyone is forgetting. To those guys, it's their livelihoods'.
3.96
APPEA maintained however that there is no evidence that seismic sound exposure impacts the 'ongoing economic viability of Australian fisheries':
Catch and abundance effects are the response type most directly of interest to the fisheries industry, but to date there are no clear effects of seismic surveys on catch rates of marine invertebrates or fish.
3.97
Mr Dustin Van Liew from the International Association of Geophysical Contractors agreed that 'fisheries in regions that host oil and gas activities continue to be some of the most productive in Australia'. He added that 'this is consistent with other regions of the world where geophysical exploration and production fisheries co-exist, including, for example, the United States' Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea'.
3.98
The committee notes evidence from Beach Energy's representative Mr Malinauskas that the company will be 'undertaking scallop impact studies before and after' the proposed Prion 3D marine seismic survey. Further, his colleague Ms French has informed the committee that 'extensive and detailed engagement with the scallop industry has resulted in:
identification of scallop beds that might be impacted by the seismic survey;
a commitment to conduct an impact assessment of that area of interest;
discussions with IMAS about further field-based research; and
a commitment to undertake sound recording at the bottom of the ocean.
Compensation or adjustment protocols
3.99
Some submitters highlighted efforts by petroleum companies to apply a 'make good' principle to offshore seismic surveying activities. Santos Limited, for example, advised that it provides:
… an overarching commitment that no relevant commercial fisher will be worse off as a result of [a] proposed seismic survey and sets control measures that enable a relevant commercial fisher to lodge a fishery payment claim.
3.100
A few submitters and witnesses commented however on the variability between these protocols. The South East Australian Fishing Industry particularly described its experience with the 'Fisheries Displacement Mitigation Plan' implemented by CGG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (CGG Services) for a 3D seismic survey in the Gippsland Basin offshore Victoria (see Chapter 2).
3.101
According to CGG Services, the Fisheries Displacement Mitigation Plan aimed to formally manage claims by commercial fishers for costs resulting from relocation and loss of catch as a consequence of marine surveying activities. Fishers could submit a signed claim form together with evidence of their expense or loss, which was then assessed by CGG Services' Fisheries Liaison Officer.
3.102
South East Australian Fishing Industry representative Mr Simon Boag argued that, while commercial fishers had to relocate from the seismic impact zone, including for legal, health and safety reasons, the displaced fishers 'got no compensation at all'. Seven months later:
We're not totally sure how much compensation CGG have paid because they won't tell us, but we do know that they've received around 215 claims for compensation and have only finalised 53 … So compensation has been very, very slow in coming and very confused, and the relationship between the fishing industry and CGG is strained to say the least.
3.103
Later in the inquiry, NOPSEMA representative Mr Tim Carter advised that, despite the payment delays, 'the evidence we've seen is that close to $2 million of compensation was paid', due to the compliance action undertaken by NOPSEMA.
3.104
SIV representative Mr Davey noted another example—Origin Energy's 2016 Crowe's Foot 3D Seismic Survey—where the company compensated commercial fishers for avoiding the entire survey area:
Given the fact that they were operating in a four-month window up and down a certain section of reef that was a highly productive area and a strong fishing ground for the rock lobster industry, they simply bought out the quota in terms of compensating people for what they had left in the water, to leave the fish in the water.
3.105
Some submitters and witnesses contended that there is scope for the offshore petroleum and commercial fishing industries to develop an industry‑wide approach to compensation/adjustment. For example, the Victorian Rock Lobster Association highlighted Origin Energy's approach as a possible precedent.
3.106
In Western Australia and the Northern Territory, Ms Shea advised that consultations for an agreed approach are currently underway, with an adjustment protocol out to consultation with WAFIC and NTSC members:
… we're looking at an evidence based adjustment process based on [catch per unit effort] comparisons … over the past 10 years. We'll also take into consideration equipment damage. We'll also take into consideration displacement costs. If they're forced to move their fishing activities from location X to location Y when they normally fish at X, that would be part of that process as well.
3.107
At present, National Energy Resources Australia is spearheading the Collaboration Seismic Environment Plan Project (see Chapter 5), in which participating companies have also agreed to:
Institute an agreed adjustment ('make good') process to allow fishers to claim for direct and demonstrable economic loss related to "unreasonable interference" before, during, and after a survey commences.
3.108
The committee notes that the Norwegian Government implements measures to reduce potential conflict between the petroleum and commercial fishing industries. One such measure is a statutory compensation scheme for the fishers' financial losses resulting from petroleum activities, including losses resulting from displacement from fishing grounds.
3.109
NOPSEMA submitted that 'there has been no scientific evidence of mortality to fish or observation of fish mortality as a result of marine seismic surveys'. Its submission acknowledged however potential economic impacts to fisheries as a result of ecological impacts:
… there is speculation that seismic surveys may result in a reduction in catch as a result of changed behaviour, disruption of fishing operations, long term impacts on spawning and recruitment, and cumulative impacts resulting in a decline in species abundance.
3.110
The regulator considered that any long-term stock reductions are minimised by replenishment from throughout the range:
Studies of indicator species for Australian fisheries have found commercial fish stocks to be generally well distributed and well connected throughout their range based on the wide ranges of single biological stocks. This indicates that impacts associated with short term and localised disturbance to fish spawning behaviour from seismic surveys are likely to be lessened by recruitment from other parts of the range that will limit the potential for long term or stock level impacts.
3.111
NOPSEMA added that it is difficult to measure the impact of seismic signal exposure on fisheries as annual catch and effort data varies within a fishery. The regulator pointed out that, although activity proponents are required to analyse the potential impact of their activity on fisheries and mitigate that impact, this is difficult due to issues of data availability:
For example, in order for proponents to adequately evaluate the potential for impacts on fisheries stocks and the ability of commercial fishers to catch their target species contemporary data on fish stock status, catch-effort data and biologically sensitive areas and times such as spawning areas/periods must be available. However, this information is often withheld from publication or not readily shared due to fishers' concerns regarding identification of key fishing or spawning locations and mistrust of the use of data by the seismic industry.
Committee view
3.112
The committee heard from the commercial fishing industry that oil and gas exploration companies do not take sufficient responsibility for the short and long-term impacts of their offshore activities.
3.113
The committee acknowledges that the current evidence base does not allow for a thorough understanding of the long-term impacts of seismic testing on marine animals and the marine environment. However, it is equally clear that this form of testing can have a range of impacts, which should be better quantified with the development of the evidence base. The committee's view is that these proven impacts should be remediated by those who propose or conduct the harmful activity.
3.114
The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Science, Energy and Resources and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment explore options for how proponents who submit project proposals for seismic activities to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority can meet the remediation of proven long‑term impacts. In particular, the departments should consider whether there should be any exemptions, including for government research bodies and marine scientists.
3.115
The committee acknowledges and sympathises with commercial fishers whose livelihoods at times have been significantly affected by the impacts of marine seismic surveys over or in close proximity to fisheries.
3.116
Where it can be demonstrated that these surveys have caused economic loss, the committee supports the payment of compensation that has been calculated in accordance with an agreed framework.
3.117
The committee notes that the offshore petroleum industry and some sectors of the commercial fishing industry are negotiating a compensation framework. The committee also notes that these negotiations have been hampered by some difficulties, including the question of how to determine economic loss in the absence of comprehensive before and after survey fisheries data.
3.118
The committee accepts that there is a need to collect more before and after survey data and that not all such data so far collected has been published (also see Chapter 2). The committee heard that this data might assist with the calculation of economic loss for the purpose of compensation claims and also provide baseline information on which to build scientific studies.
3.119
In the committee's view, the offshore petroleum and commercial fishing industries need a nationally agreed and comprehensive framework for the payment of compensation where marine rights have been negatively impacted by the conduct of seismic activities. In particular, the terms of payment—such as eligibility, the calculation of loss formula and time for payment—must be clearly established.
3.120
The committee notes that there is no nationally agreed framework for compensation. To expedite the matter, the committee considers that the Australian Government should lead a public consultation aimed at establishing a compensation framework which should then form a standard condition for acceptance of an environment plan.
3.121
The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Science, Energy and Resources and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, conduct a public consultation to develop a nationally agreed compensation framework for fishers who are financially affected by the impacts of seismic surveys.