Back
Environment
DEA

MEDIA ALERT: Federal Court decision: Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) v NOPSEMA and Woodside

Doctors for the Environment Australia

21 August 2025 

What: Federal Court will hand down its decision on NOPSEMA’s acceptance of the Environment Plan for Woodside’s Scarborough Gas Project 

When: Friday August 22 at 2:15 pm AEST

Applicant: Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA)   

Respondents: NOPSEMA and Woodside Energy 

Presiding Judge: Hon Justice Shaun McElwaine  

Case name: Doctors for the Environment (Australia) Incorporated v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & Anor 

Case number: VID527/2025 

Video streaming: Federal Court of Australia - YouTube

 

Details

The Federal Court will hand down its judgment on the validity of NOPSEMA’s acceptance of Woodside’s Production Environment Plan for its Scarborough Gas Project at 2.15pm AEST this Friday. 

  

Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) initiated legal proceedings in April, challenging the decision of national offshore oil and gas regulator, NOPSEMA, to accept the Environment Plan that Woodside had submitted. 

  

Media release 

DEA will issue a media release as soon as possible after the decision is handed down on Friday.

 

CONTACTS  

DEA | Media and Communications Lead Carmela Ferraro | 0410 703 074 | [email protected] 

DEA | Executive Director Dr Kate Wylie | 0432 871 389

EDO | Media Adviser James Tremain | 0419 272 254 | [email protected] 

 

- END -

  

PREVIOUS MEDIA STATEMENTS 

1 May 2025 — Doctors challenge Scarborough gas field Environment Plan approval 

6 June 2025 — Doctors for the Environment test case on Woodside’s Scarborough Gas Project to proceed after court grants crucial costs order 

10 July – Federal Court Hearing: Doctors for the Environment Australia v NOPSEMA and Woodside   

 

BACKGROUND 

Federal regulations require an Environment Plan (EP) to be approved by NOPSEMA before offshore projects can be carried out by oil and gas companies. 

 

The regulations specify that an EP must include an evaluation of all environmental impacts and risks of the project. 

 

That evaluation must detail control measures that will be used to reduce those impacts and risks to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and an acceptable level.  

 

The Scarborough Operations EP relates to the production of gas from offshore fields and transmission to onshore LNG processing plants. It identified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as an environmental impact and risk of those activities. Over its lifetime, the Scarborough Project will result in the release of an estimated 878 million tonnes of CO2-e. 

 

In evaluating the impacts and risks of GHG emissions, the Scarborough Operations EP stated that gas from the Scarborough Project may displace more carbon-intensive fuels and have a role in reducing global GHG emissions – but acknowledged that this is uncertain. 

 

In order to manage and abate GHG emissions, the Scarborough Operations EP included various control measures. These included:  

 

  • The implementation of (unspecified) “additional management measuresif annual reviews undertaken by Woodside reveal that Scarborough gas is not displacing more carbon intensive fuels or contributing to the global energy transition. 

  • Woodside supporting customers to reduce their emissions via investment in new energy products and lower carbon services. 

  • Woodside working with the natural gas value chain to reduce emissions in third party systems. 

 

These control measures were included in the Scarborough Operations EP as part of the assessment that the environmental impacts and risks of the project’s GHG emissions had been reduced to ALARP and an acceptable level. 

 

In the proceedings, DEA contended that: 

 

  • Those control measures (and related performance standards and measurement criteria) do not comply with the requirements of the regulations, in part because they are uncertain; and, because of that, 

  • The Scarborough Operations EP did not demonstrate that the environmental impacts and risks of the project had been reduced to ALARP and an acceptable level. 

 

In turn, DEA contended that NOPSEMA could not have been reasonably satisfied that the Scarborough Operations EP complied with the regulations, and therefore NOPSEMA’s decision to approve it was unlawful and should be set aside by the Court. 

 

ABOUT DEA

Read more about DEA here.


Contact details:

Doctors for the Environment Australia | Media and Communications Lead Carmela Ferraro | 0410 703 074 | [email protected]

Executive Director Dr Kate Wylie | 0432 871 389

 

Environmental Defenders Office | Media Adviser James Tremain | 0419 272 254 | [email protected]