Northern Land Council Response to the

Interim Report of the Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing

in the Northern Territory

25 September 2017

ii

Thispagehasbeenleftblankintentionally

iii

Preface

On 14 September 2016 the Northern Territory Government announced a scientific inquiry intohydraulic fracturing of onshore unconventional reservoirs in the Northern Territory (the Inquiry)under the InquiriesAct (NT).On14 July2017 the Inquiry releasedan InterimReport (theReport),whichdetails theactivitiesundertakenby the InquiryPanel todateand itspreliminaryanalysisofsomeof the risks andbenefits of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in theNorthern Territory. TheNorthernLandCouncil(NLC)ispleasedtoprovideasubmission(theSubmission)inresponsetotheReport.

TheNLCbelievesthatseriousreformisrequiredtoimproveregulationandmanagementoftherisksassociated with hydraulic fracturing and the broader development of the onshore petroleumindustry in theNorthernTerritory.Regulatory reformand theactivitiesof theonshorepetroleumindustry must be conducted with the knowledge that Aboriginal people are key stakeholders intheseprocesses.Aboriginalpeoplearean integralpartof thesocial,culturalandpolitical fabricoftheNorthernTerritoryandasagroupconstitutethelargestlandholdersintheregion.

TheNLC insists that leadingpracticeprinciplesandmethodologiesbeemployedwhen it comes totheimplementationofregulatoryreformanddevelopmentofIndustryandthatanysuchapproachmusthaveregardtoscientificnormsandrelevantprinciples,highlightingtheprecautionaryprincipleandEcologically SustainableDevelopment (ESD) asexamples. Internationally recognised standardssuch as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) need to beapplied andmust be consistent with the ‘sustainable livelihoods’ approach first proposed by theAboriginalPeakOrganisationsNorthernTerritory(APONT)in2011.

To ensure Indigenous environmental values are accurately represented in any onshore petroleumdevelopmentproposalacrossall typesof landtenure intheNorthernTerritorythegoalofseekingtheinformedconsentoftheAboriginallandownersfortherelevantareashouldbethestandardtowhichbothGovernmentand Industryaimfor.Therequirementtoobtain informedconsentwouldopen the door for Aboriginal people to truly be a part of the decision making process for alldevelopmentproposalsthatdirectlyaffectthemandtheircountryiftheonshoreunconventionalgasindustryweretobedeveloped inthoseregions.The InformedconsentrequirementcurrentlyonlyappliestolandgovernedbytheAboriginalLandRights(NorthernTerritory)Act1976(ALRA).

ItisnottheroleoftheNLCtoholdanopiniononthemerits(orotherwise)ofhydraulicfracturing.Althoughitisobvioustonotethatsometraditionalownershavesignificantconcernsabouttheuseof hydraulic fracturing in theNLC region particularly in relation to the contamination ofwater inaquifers.TodatetheNorthernTerritoryGovernmenthasnotbeenabletoallaythoseconcerns.ThisisprobablybecauseofthepoorregulatoryregimethatappliesintheNorthernTerritorywhichisaconcernsharedbytheNLC.

The NLC promotes the approach represented by the UNDRIP, ESD and informed consent in theunderstanding that this iswhatmustbedone toachieve thebestoutcomes forAboriginalpeopleand in doing so, best represent the environmental values of the petroleum-rich regions of theNorthernTerritorywhereAboriginalpeopleformthemajorityofthepopulation.

ItistheNLC’sresponsibilitytosupporttheinformeddecisionsofAboriginalpeopletomanagetheirland,watersandseas,includingwhenengagingwiththeonshorepetroleumindustry.

iv

ThisSubmissionprovidesnewevidenceandresponds to informationpresented in theReport thatwasnotpreviouslycommunicatedpublicallybytheInquiry.

TheSubmissionismadeonbehalfoftheNLC’sAboriginalconstituentsandprovidesinformationontherelevanceoftheInquirytotheNLCandtoIndigenouspeople.

v

ContentsPreface.............................................................................................................................iii

Chapter3:EvidenceandRiskAssessmentMethodology....................................................1

Chapter5:ShaleGasDevelopmentandManagement.......................................................45.2.2Stagesofexplorationanddevelopment...............................................................................45.3.3Decommissioning.................................................................................................................45.5.1Wastewaterproduction.......................................................................................................55.5.3Compositionofflowbackandproducedwater....................................................................55.6.4Wastewatermanagementincidents....................................................................................6

Chapter6:ShaleGasinAustraliaandtheNorthernTerritory............................................66.5.1Scaleofdevelopment...........................................................................................................76.5.2Rateofdevelopment............................................................................................................76.5.3Infrastructureneeds.............................................................................................................7

Chapter7:Water...............................................................................................................87.2.1Surfacewaterresourcesand7.2.2Groundwaterresources...............................................87.4.1Watersupply........................................................................................................................97.4.2WaterQuality......................................................................................................................107.4.2.1SurfaceWater...................................................................................................................107.4.2.2Groundwater....................................................................................................................10

Chapter8:Land...............................................................................................................118.3.1Landscapeamenity.............................................................................................................128.3.2Inappropriateplanningofregionaldevelopmentduetoinadequateknowledgeofbiodiversityassets........................................................................................................................128.3.3Spreadofweeds.................................................................................................................128.3.4Changedfireregimes..........................................................................................................138.3.5Habitatlossandfragmentation..........................................................................................138.3.6Inappropriatelocationofinfrastructurewithinadevelopmentarea................................14

Chapter9:GreenhouseGasEmissions.............................................................................159.5Lifecycleemissions...............................................................................................................15

Chapter11:AboriginalPeopleandtheirCulture..............................................................16PartI:Generalcommentstoissuesraisedinchapter11...........................................................16PartII:Specificcommentstoissuesraisedinchapter11...........................................................18PartIII:NLCresponsetoquestionspresentedonpage92oftheInterimReport.......................20

Chapter12:SocialImpacts..............................................................................................23

Chapter13:EconomicImpacts.........................................................................................24

Chapter14:RegulatoryReform.......................................................................................2514.3.2 PetroleumSchedule.....................................................................................................2514.3.3 PetroleumEnvironmentRegulations...........................................................................26Meaningfulcommunityengagement...........................................................................................26

vi

Incorporationoftraditionalknowledge.......................................................................................2714.4.6.3Onusofproof................................................................................................................29

APPENDIX1:References..................................................................................................30

1

Chapter3:EvidenceandRiskAssessmentMethodology

Thischapteroutlinesthemethodologyofevidencegatheringandriskassessmentapplicabletotheworkof the Inquiry.Theapproachappliedby thePanel to identifyandassess the risksassociatedwiththehydraulicfracturingofunconventionalreservoirsforshalegasintheNorthernTerritoryhasentailed:

• Identify thespectrumof risks (environmental, social, culturalandeconomic -appendix1).Thisworkhasalsoentailed scopingof ‘risk themes’with stakeholders throughcommunitymeetings,existingliteratureandalsowrittensubmissionstotheInquiry;

• Assess the risks - in terms of likelihood and consequences should the risk eventuate byapplying a standardised risk assessment framework adopted by the Northern TerritoryGovernmentPetroleum(Environment)Regulationsanexplanatoryguide,whichisbasedonAustralianStandards ISO31000:2009RiskManagementPrinciplesandguidelines (2016), aworld-recognised leading practice standard applicable to a range of situations andindustries;

• Determinemitigationmeasures(ifany)toreducerisktoanacceptablelevel(referredtoasthe ‘As Low as Reasonably Practicable’ or ALARP) and formulate these with as muchprecisionaspossible;

• Identifyandfillknowledgegaps (wherepossible) forareaswhichrequireamoredetailedand in depth analysis. To this end independent studies into the potential economic andsocial impacts of an onshore shale gas industry in the Northern Territory have beencommissionedbytheInquiry.

UnderpinningEvidence

ThemainsourcesofinformationtheInquiryhasreferredtointheReportincludes:

• ReportsfrompriorInquiries theHunterreportsandHawkereports(2014and2015)• Publishedscientificliterature whichislimited;• Unpublished reports such as the Final report of the Australian Council of Learned

Academies(ACOLA);• Stakeholder meetings, community forums/hearings conducted by the Panel and written

submissionsfromstakeholders;and• Interstatevisitswithpetroleumindustryrepresentatives,Stateregulatorybodiesandother

sourcesofexpertise.

InlinewiththeviewsofmanystakeholderstheInquiryhasjudgedthatthereisapaucityofbaselinestudies.

Studieshavebeencommissionedforthefollowing:

• Quantifyingmethaneemissions fromtheon-shoreshalegas industry-contractawardedtotheUniversityMelbourne;

• Mechanismsofunconventionalgasextractedandwhatoccurswhenwellsareabandoned contractawardedtotheUniversityofSydney;

• Social impact assessment framework with Beetaloo sub-basin as a case study contractawardedtoCoffeyServicesAustraliaPtyLtd;and

2

• Economicassessment todeterminetheactualandpotentialdirectandindirecteconomicbenefits and risks associated with development of the onshore shale gas industry in theNorthernTerritory-contractawardedtoACILAllenConsultingPtyLtd.

ItisnotedthatsomeoftheconsultancyfirmsawardedcontractsbytheInquirymayconsequentlybewellplacedtocapitaliseontheirinvolvementwiththefrackingstudiesshouldtheonshoreshalegasindustryproceedintheNorthernTandotherlocations.

Diffusingcontroversythroughascientificprocess

TheInquiryprocesshasidentifiedthata lackofreadilyaccessibleandcomprehensibleinformationhasplausiblycontributedtohydraulic fracturingforunconventionalandconventionalgas,shaleorcoalseamtobereferredtoasbeingthesameinallsituations. Furtherconfusionappearstoexistaboutthedegreetowhichenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithcoalseamgasdevelopmentsaretransferabletotheshalegassector,regardlessofthegeologicalandgeographicalcontext.

Claim and counter claim has led to confusion and misinformation on both sides of the frackingdebate. Stakeholder opinions expressed via public hearings held by, and written submissionshighlightthatmultipleperceptionsexist.InadditionanumberofrespondentstotheInquiryvoicedconcernsindicatingalackoftrustinthecorporations,industryself-regulationandotherregulatorybodiesinvolvedacrossboththepublicandprivatesectors.

TheReportsuggeststhatthepublicjustwantstoknowwheretoturntogetthefacts thetruth.Itisfair to say thatmultiple stakeholders are looking for the Inquiry to objectively filter through theplethora of information in a scientific manner which is cognisant of the context for publicopinion/perceptions. Public opinion is identified as valuable to the Inquiry: “public opinion andattitudesarerelevanttodeterminingwhetherornotanyonshoreunconventionalshalegasindustryholdsasociallicencetooperateandifabsenthowitcanbeobtained”(page18).

TheInquiryhasidentifiedahighlevelofmistrustintermsofinterpretingimpactsoffracking.Inthiscontext the Inquiry is attempting toestablisha sound judgementenvironmentandprocesswhichwillgaintrustandrespect intermsof itsobjectiverigour. However,there issufficientelasticity intheriskassessmentprocessforahighdegreeofsubjectivejudgementtobeappliedintermsofthefocus(aspectsofimpact)presentedintheInterimandFinalReportsandhowinformationistreatedandweightedwhenmakingfinaljudgements(Fishchhoffetal.1984).

Processinginformation

Thestructureofenquiryneedstobesufficientlyexplicitsothatitmaybereadilyviewedasobjectiveand has the capacity to be rigorously questioned by all stakeholders. A trustworthy andprecautionaryexaminationprocesswithanexplicitstructureisrequiredtoachievethefollowing:

• Identifyingtheobjects/valueswhichmaybecompromised;• Filtering information and forming judgements with regards to the degree to which the

objects/values may be influenced to determine the “material” risks”. The term “materialrisk”requiresdefinitionbutcouldbeinterpretedtogenerallymeanofsufficientmagnitudetocrossathresholdintermsofmakingadifference;and

• Formingjudgementsandclaimsandtheircontext(e.g.specifictogeneral)whichneedtobeclearlydefinedandcomplementedwithameansofexaminingtheweightandoruncertaintyof supporting information (e.g.quantity,quality,breadthor rigourof informationsources)withappropriatecaveats.

3

Recommendation 1: Identify the scientific processes to filtering through the wide range ofinformation and selecting the key themes for interrogation in the public reports. Importantlydistinguishopinionandspeculationfromwellsubstantiatedinformationandevidence.Forexampleidentify the process of objective social enquiry at least in an appendix identify how themes areselected for presentation in the public report and their degree of representation (e.g. raised anumberoftimesfromdifferentsources/sectorsvsaloneexampleetc.).

Recommendation 2: define “Material Risks” and the process for judging issues as material andthereforewarrantinginterrogationformitigation.Recommendation 3:Provide ameans ofweighting evidence and or claims. Strong or defamatoryclaimsneedtobebackedbyequallystrongevidence.Judgementsmayneedtobebasedonlimitedshort term studies or results with a high degree of variability, extreme extrapolation and evenspeculation. In contrast some judgements may made with more certainty if backed by rigorousstudieswithbroad samplingoverawide rangeof situationsandundertakenbymultipledifferentparties mostly reaching similar conclusions. A means of qualifying depth and credibility of theunderpinninginformationwouldimprovetheriskassessmentprocess.Recommendation4:Detailtheriskassessmentprocess.Highlightthecomponentsofariskelementand the interconnections between risk elements (e.g. surface water impacts and biodiversity).Reference all information underpinning proposed impacts and proposedmitigations. Identify theresidual impacts with the proposed mitigation measures in place. Indicate the potential risks ofnoncompliancewithmitigationsorpoorimplementation.Clarifycriteriafordistinguishingexaminingdifferentscalesanddimensionsofariskelement(e.g.thescaleofimpact localtoextensiveshortterm to long term impact, reversible to irreversible etc.) leading to a resultant summary statistic(refertoFishchhoffetal.1984&).Chapter8oftheReportprovidessomemorespecificdefinitionoflowtohighlevelsofimpact thisshouldbeprovidedforeachchapteroftheFinalReport.Recommendation 5: Clarify and quantifying uncertainty in the final risk classification. Risk iscurrently interpreted as uncertainty to an objective. Establish levels of certainty by means of aranking scale (e.g.high levelof certainty to low level) so that residual risksand theiracceptabilitymaybeexaminedinthecontextofuncertaintytoanobjective(e.g.securityofwaterquality).

Qualifytheuncertaintyinclaims(scientific,opinionorspeculation). Providecaveatswherefurtherevidence is required to make sound judgements or whether there are limits/constraints onincreasing certainty even through further studies. Indicate where there is evidence ofnoncompliance.

4

Chapter5:ShaleGasDevelopmentandManagement

5.2.2Stagesofexplorationanddevelopment

FinalStage:Removalofallpipelinesandotherinfrastructure.

• TheReportreferstotheremovalofallpipelinesandotherrelevantinfrastructureoncegasfields are no longer producing. Is it feasible that the removal of sub surface pipelineswilloccur?Giventhiswouldhappenmanyyears intothefuture it isunrealisticandpotentiallymisleading tomake such statementswhenno commitmenthas beenmadeby companieswishing to develop gas fields. This statement should be removed from the report as it isspeculativeinnature.

• TheReport fails to discusswhatwould happen towells and other infrastructure should acompany fall into receivership or close down prematurely. The Northern Territory has alargenumberof legacymineissuesanditwouldbeprudenttodiscusstheissueof liabilityandwhowouldhaveresponsibilitytoremediateundersuchcircumstances.Suchdiscussionshould capture the issue of security or rehabilitation bonds and how such bonds arecalculated.QuestionsthatshouldbeaskedbytheInquiryinclude:arethesebondamountssufficienttofullyremediateallinfrastructureandmanageabandoned(legacy)wellsintothefuture?Ifnotwhatchangesneedtobemadetothewaybondamountsaredeterminedtoensureremediationisfullyfundedbythebond?

5.3.3Decommissioning

ThefollowinginformationwasprovidedtotheInquirybyPangaeaResourcesPtyLtd(Pangaea):

Steelbridgeplugsareinsertedinthewellboreatvariouslevels.Togetherwiththecementplugstheyprovidealongtermbarrierandcreatesegmentedpressurecellsshouldthesteelcasingevercorrodeorbebrokenbyfluidsinthelocalgeologicalsettingortectonicstressesorevenearthquakes(page28).

• Theterm‘longterm’needstobedefined.ThereisaconcernthatlocalAboriginalpeoplewillbetheprincipalriskholdersforexistingandfuturelegacywellsthatmayslowlydeteriorateovertime;

• Seismicactivitycansheercasingparticularlycasingweakenedovertimeorcasingdamagedduetoinappropriatestorageandhandlingpractices(i.e.‘pinched’orcorrodedcasing) whowillmonitorabandonedwellsandwhowillberesponsiblefortheirongoingmaintenance?

Should fluids gain access into the casing, the presence of several layers of cement plugs shouldmitigatetheriskofandmovementintoaplacewhereenvironmentalharmwouldresult?

• If fluidsenteringacasingarehighlysaline,cansuchfluids increasecorrosion(rusting)andcausethecasingtodeteriorate?

• Ifsalinefluidsassistinthedeteriorationofcasingwhatistostopseepageofsuchfluidsintogroundwaters?

TheReportreferstoasingleblowouteventintheNorthernTerritory.GiventhatveryfewwellshavebeendrilledintheNorthernTerritorythusfarasingleblowoutincidentisofconcernasitpotentiallyhighlightsalackofrobustnessintheregulatoryregime,limitedgeologicalknowledgewithintheregionand/ortheinexperienceofpersonsundertakingtheactivity.

5

5.5.1Wastewaterproduction

Above ground, the flowback and produced water is either stored in temporary storage tanks orpondsorisconveyedtoawastewatertreatmentplant.Itisworthnotingthat:

• Section 5.5.1 of the Report references wastewaters being conveyed via pipeline to awastewater treatment plant, currently nowastewater treatment plants exist in NorthernTerritory and there has been little discussion relating to the construction of a facilitysuitabletoprocesswastewaters.Storedwastewaterispotentiallyproblematicoverthewetseason.Storagefacilitiesmayoverfloworfloodwatersmaypresentahazard.

• Unlinedstorageponds,damagedandincorrectlystoredandtransportedwastewatersposearisktotheenvironmentashasbeencommentedonundersection5.6.4oftheReport.

Wherewill thewastewaterbetreatedandtowhatstandard?Watercanbereusedbuthowmanytimes,atwhatpointdoesthedeterioratingqualityofwastewaterrenderitunusable?Howwillthetransportandstorageofthiswastewaterbeadequatelymanagedandregulated?

5.5.3Compositionofflowbackandproducedwater

Onpage29oftheReportitiswritten:

overseasstudiesdosuggest that flowbackandproducedwatercancontainamuchgreaternumberofpotentiallyenvironmentallysensitivechemicals thanarepresentintheoriginalhydraulicfracturingfluidcomposition,andthatthemajority of these additional compounds originate from the minerals andorganic compounds present in the shale formation. However, this does notmeanthatbecauseachemicalisdetectedinflowbackorproducedwateritwillbeharmfultohumanhealthortheenvironment.

InaccordancewiththeprecautionaryprincipletheReportshouldalsonotethecounterpointwhichistostatethatitdoesn’tmeanthattheflowbackorproducedwatersaresafeeither.ItistheNLC’sview that stringent testingby independent laboratoriesmustbemandated inorder todefineandunderstandthechemicalcompositionofflowbackandproducedwater,onlythencantheidentifiedchemicalsbecomparedwithAustralianguidelines todeterminepotentialenvironmentalorhealthissuesandinformedmanagementplansdeveloped.

Recommendation6:Watercontaminatedwithhydrocarbons(fromwetwells)mustbeassessedandcontingencywatermanagementplansdevelopedpriortocommencementofdrilling.Recommendation7:Analysisofbothindividualchemicalsandanynewchemicalcompoundsformedasaresultofthehydraulicfracturingprocessshouldbecarriedoutandtheresultsdisclosedtothepublictoallowanypotentialenvironmentalorhealthimpactstobedetermined.Recommendation8:Thereshouldbefull,public,independentanalysisanddisclosureofthevolume,chemicalandothercharacteristicsofallflowbackandwastewaters.

6

5.6.4Wastewatermanagementincidents

On page 31 of the Report information is provided from a 2016 assessment by the US EPA that“collated data from thousands ofwells that had been drilled and hydraulically fractured over thepastdecade”.FromthisstudytheUSEPAconcluded“therewasnoevidenceofwidespreadimpactonshallowaquifers,andnodemonstratedcasesofcontaminationofdrinkingwaterresourcesfromhydraulic fracturing at depth. It did however identify cases of drinking water supplies beingcontaminatedbyhydraulicfracturingfluidsorflowbackwater,andofthecontaminationofaquifersasaresultoffailureofwell integrityduringandafterhydraulicfracturing”(page31)hadoccurred.ThisstatementappearstocontradictearlierstatementsintheReportthatassertfrackingdoesnotimpactongroundwater.

Given hydraulic fracturing is the principal technology required to facilitate exploitation of theNorthernTerritory’sonshoreunconventionalgasreserves,theNLCurgesthePaneltoconsidertheimpacts on ground and surface water associated with all aspects of the onshore gas industryincluding but not limited to activities conducted during the construction, operation,decommissioningandabandonmentofwellsandassociatedtransportationandotherinfrastructure.Theimpactsofhydraulicfracturingarebestunderstoodinthebroadercontextofthedevelopmentoftheentireonshoreunconventionalgas industryfromstarttoendandnotasasingleeventoralimitedprocess.

The aspects of the industry considered by the Panel as having the capacity to impact upon theenvironmentshouldbebroad,longtermandinclude,butnotnecessarilybelimitedtoemployment,land clearing, well construction, perforation, hydraulic injection, flowback and produced water,chemical and wastewater storage, all transport (cartage/handling) of petroleum, wastewater,chemicals, infrastructure and any related materials, decommissioning, rehabilitation and wellintegrity.

Chapter6:ShaleGasinAustraliaandtheNorthernTerritory

It is disappointing thatno informationwasprovidedabout theNorthernTerritoryenvironment inthissectionoftheInterimReport.ThereareanumberoffactorsuniquetotheNorthernTerritory,including a large Aboriginal population and diverse natural habitats covering large areas, thatprovidesanovel context for thedevelopmentof adomesticonshoregas industry.AnexampleofthisarethemanyIndigenousProtectedAreasthatarepartofAustralia’sNationalProtectedAreassystemrecognisedbytheIUCN.Thistypeofinformationshouldbeprovidedheretofullyappreciatethe potential impacts of onshore gas exploration and development. Unique cultural, heritage,biodiversity and other values ascribed to large parts of the Northern Territory, including theBeetaloosub-basin,areimportantanddeservetobepresentedinthisdiscussionoflocalcontext.Ifthe Territory’s unique environment is omitted from this discussion the Panel runs the risk ofpromotingmixedmessageswheredifferentpartsoftheReportprovidesdifferent informationanddraws different conclusions in relation to the same issue. Any such inconsistencies should berectifiedintheFinalReport.Thisissueisdemonstratedbythedifferentinformationpresented(andsourcesofinformationreferenced)inrelationtosurfaceimpactsunderbothchapters6and8oftheInterimReport.

7

6.5.1Scaleofdevelopment

InformationprovidedbythepetroleumcompanyOriginin itssubmissiontotheInquiry inrelationto a large-scale development scenario is presented on page 43 and repeated in table 6.2 of theReport.AccordingtotheOriginsubmissionthisdevelopmentwouldrequirebetween400-500wellsdrilled on 50-65 pads over a 20-40 year period. Pipelines and other ancillary infrastructure(compressor stations, access roads, etc.) would also be required. The Report repeats Origin’sassertion that “the entire development areawould cover approximately 500 km2, with a directlyaffectedsurfaceareaoflessthan10km2(or2%)cumulatively”(page43).

Without knowing the basis for this calculation it is theNLC’s preliminary view that the commentrelating to the direct impacts on surface area is misleading, as it appears to have omitted roadconstruction. Road construction, and possibly all-weather road construction, will be essential toconstructandmaintaininfrastructure.Itappearsasthoughthelargestpotentialimpactonthelandsurfacehasbeenleftoutofthisassessment.TheNLCurgesthePaneltoundertakecautionandtoemployscientificrigour inassessingtheveracityof informationprovidedtotheInquirybeforethisinformationispresentedinanyofitspublicreports.

Notwithstandingthehighlyspeculativenatureofpredictingsurfaceimpactssoearlyinthelifeofaproject and well before any feasibility assessments have commenced, such forecasts should beaccompanied(inpublicreports)byinformationaboutmethodologyandscope(i.e.landsurfaceareaclearedperwellmultipliedbyxnumberofwells,orxKmsof roads notingaverage road,width,etc.)andshouldcoverallsurfaceimpactsoverthelifeoftheproject.Ifthesecalculationsdo,astheNLCsuspects,onlycoverlimitedtypesofinfrastructureoveralimitedtimeperiodthenthisneedstobedisclosedintheReport.

Footnote94 isrepeatedtwice inthebodyoftheReport(page44) leadingtoerrors insubsequentreferencesforfootnotes95,96&97.

6.5.2Rateofdevelopment

The Report suggests that the rate of simultaneous development of Australia’s gas fields will behindered by a lack of drilling rigs and suitably experienced people. If supply constraints dictatedhigher prices then companies could potentially secure additional drill rigs andmoreworkers andequipment through new orders or international redistribution of existing stock as has beendemonstratedintheoffshoresectorwithrigmovementsregularlyspanningtheglobe.

6.5.3Infrastructureneeds

At this stage, information provided to the Inquiry and presented in the Report reads “theinfrastructureneedsofthepossibledevelopmentscenario intheBeetalooSub-basinsuggeststhat200drillingpadsandmorethan1,000wellscouldberequired.Accesstothewellsiteswouldrequireseveral hundred roads in the first instance, and the installation of connecting pipelines totreatment/productionfacilities”(page43).

• Thephraseseveralhundredroads isambiguous.Theestimatedtotalstraight lineKmsandKm2 of surface area covered by these roadswould be amore relevant reference (such aspresentedintable8.1onpage69).

8

Chapter7:Water

IntheNorthernTerritorytheonshorepetroleumindustryisnotsubjecttoandisinfactexemptfromregulationunder theWaterAct. TheNLC considers this exemption tobea considerableoversightgiven the potential for rapid development of the onshore petroleum industry in the NorthernTerritory. In any event it should also be noted that the NTWater Act does not comply with theNationalWater Initiative. So there ismuchwork to be done to ensure an appropriate regulatoryframeworkforthemanagementandprotectionoftheNTswaterresourcesisbroughtintoexistencetoensurethatonecanhaveconfidenceespeciallyinrelationtohydraulicfracturing.

Chapter7acknowledgesthatthereisinsufficientscientificinformationavailabletofullyunderstandthepotential impacts to both ground and surfacewaters.Given the lack of quantifiable data it isdifficult if not impossible to prove that industry will meet the Northern Territory’s aspiration forsustainable development, particularlywith respect to key themes and concerns expressed by thepublicaboutwater.

Giventhe lackofdataavailableonbothgroundandsurfacewaterswithin theBeetalooSub-basin(andsurroundingregions)andgivenhowlittleisknownaboutgroundandsurfacewatersandtheirinteractionwithecosystemsandbiota,itisdisappointingtoseethatwateruse/extractionestimatesused intheReportarebased inthemainlyonestimations. It isalsodisappointingtoseethatonlywaterextractionforhydraulic fracturing isconsideredandthecomprehensivewaterrequirementsoftheindustryasawholedoesnotappeartohavebeenconsideredintheReport.

TheReportfailstoconsiderthemultiplehydraulicfracturingeventsthatanonshoreunconventionalgaswellwouldtypicallybesubjecttooveritsproductivelife.Waterrequirementsforinfrastructure,construction, dust suppression,maintenanceanddrinking should alsobe consideredand volumescalculated. This failure toproperly captureandaccount forwateruse isdisappointingand fails tomeetcommunityexpectationsaswateruseandpotentialcontaminationarekeyconcernsheldbybothIndigenousandnon-IndigenousmembersoftheNorthernTerritorypublic.TheNLChopesthisoversightwillberectifiedintheFinalReport.

7.2.1Surfacewaterresourcesand7.2.2Groundwaterresources

These sections of the Report highlight community concerns regarding the risk of excessivewaterextraction to groundwater and to the maintenance of dry season surface water flows andcatchments. Overexploitation of groundwater resources, in many instances, typically leads tomoderateifnotstrongimpactstoGroundwaterDependentEcosystems(GDEs)duetohydrologicalchanges that occur during extraction (MacKay 2006). This can result in changes to the vegetationstructure and composition of these ecosystems not to mention the potential for groundwaterextractiontolowerenvironmentalflowsinriversystemsthatcanresultinlowercarryingcapacitiesin these rivers and river dependent ecosystems such as billabongs and wetlands. This is so alsoconcerningthelikelyeffectuponsacredsitessuchasspringsandriversystemsifthereareadverseeffectsuponwaterflowsandtherechargingofaquifers.

InwesternandsouthernQueensland,theflowrateofspringsfedbytheartesianbasinhavebeenestimated to have decreased by as much as 75%, contributing to changes to the vegetativecommunitiesassociatedwithspringwetlands(FenshamandFairfax2003).

This reduction in flow rates has been demonstrated to cause salt intrusion and land subsidence(Kendyetal.2003)andwhileNLCnotes thatconditionsandthenatureof industry inQueensland

9

may be different to what is proposed with the Northern Territory the lessons learnt from suchexamplesshouldbethoroughlyconsidered.

Classically, the application of safe or sustainable groundwater yield is defined in terms of theaveragerechargerateofanaquifersoastobalancethelongtermwithdrawalandrechargerates.Inrespect to the Beetaloo Sub-basin, the Panel has acknowledged that little is known about therechargepathwaysoftheaquiferletalonetherateofrecharge.Withoutgreaterscientificscrutinyofrechargepathways,aquiferflows,aquifervolumesandsustainableyield,makinganyassumptiononwhatcouldpossiblybeextractedforuseinhydraulicfracturingandrelatedactivitiesoftheonshoreunconventionalgassectorcouldbedetrimentaltothemaintenanceofthesesystems.

The Panel does not appear to have highlighted the need for, or identified any, future researchrequirementspertainingtothemaintenanceofenvironmental flows inriversystems. Inparticular,those that are supplemented by groundwater discharge during seasonal dry conditions. Littleconsideration has been given to GDEs and in the absence of quantifiable data defining theacceptableleveltowhichgroundwatercanfall,withminimumimpacttoenvironmentalvalues.Itisthe NLC’s view that more research, including basin-wide baseline studies into groundwater andsurface water systems, need to be conducted before an unknown level of onshore petroleumdevelopmentcanbeentertained.

7.4.1Watersupply

Here the Report seeks to address community concerns related to water supply for petroleumdevelopment in the Beetaloo Sub-basin. By the Panel’s own admission, the nature of the regionnecessitates the use of groundwater to support onshore unconventional shale gas development.ThePanelhassoughttoaddresstheuseofwaterwithrespecttohydraulicfracturinganditseffortstoseekmoreinformationbasedona1,000to1,200welldevelopmentiscommendable.However,theNLC is concerned that any calculationofwaterusewill focusonadiscrete temporal scenarioratherthanassessingwaterrequirementsoverthelifeofadevelopmentandonaregionalbasis.

It is well documented that in order to maintain adequate production rates from onshoreunconventional gas wells, companies are often required to performmultiple hydraulic fracturingstimulationsoverthecourseofawell’slife.TheReportdoesnotclarifyiftheprojectedwaterusageaccountforthismultiplestimulationsoverthelifeofwellscenarioornot.WhiletheNLCismindfulthePanelmayconsiderthisoutsideof itsscope,thereareassociatedactivitiesthathavenotbeenconsidered. Theseactivities extend topressure testing and flushingofpipes,worker/campusageandcivilworks suchas roadconstructionanddust suppression.TheNLCbelievesanycalculationsbasedpurelyonwellstimulationalonecouldleadtoagrossunderestimationoftheactualamountofwater required to service the industry. Furthermore, unregulatedwater usewould render anyrigorous regulatory regime incapable of undertaking adaptivemeasures to ensure the sustainableuseofgroundwaterintheBeetalooSub-basinregion.ThustheNLCisstronglyoftheopinionthatata minimum onshore petroleum development must be subject to legislated regulation under asignificantlyimprovedWaterActintheNorthernTerritory.

Additionally,theNLCmaintainsconcernsaboutthecapacityandwillingnessofpetroleumcompaniesto self-regulate and to apply sustainable approaches to themanagement ofwater resources thatconsider both ecosystem services and the water requirements of other stakeholders during theindustry’sdevelopmentacrosstheNorthernTerritory.

10

Recommendation 9: That water usage by the onshore petroleum sector be subject to regulationunderasignificantlyimprovedWaterAct.

7.4.2WaterQuality

Section 7.4.2 considers five main pathways by which ground or surface waters may becontaminated. It is disappointing that contamination derived from flowback waters in sumps orotherstoragefacilitieshasnotbeenhighlightedasapotentialsourceofcontamination.

Potentialproblemswiththestorageofflowbackwaterincludes:

• unlinedstorageponds;• damagetolinersinpondsthoughpoorhandling/storage,livestockintrusionorother;and• overflow of storage ponds during significant (high-intensity) rainfall events that are

commonplaceacrosstheTopEndoftheNorthernTerritory.

TheReportnotesthatthereisnoobligationforcompaniestopublicallydivulgethecompositionofflowbackorproducedwaterfromshalegasoperationsand,asnotedpreviouslyintheSubmission,the NLC believes that this omission from legislation should be addressed in the Final Report andtakenupbytheGovernment.TheNLCadvisesthePaneltorecommendpublicdisclosuresothatintheeventofamajorspillorcontaminationeventthechemicalcompositionofthefluidsenteringtheenvironmentisfullyunderstood.

7.4.2.1SurfaceWater

TheReportdiscusses the transportationof chemicalsandwaste fluidsandnotes thepotential forspillhowever,thePanelmakesnomentionaboutwherewastewaterwillbetransportedtoandbywhat means. Currently there are no treatment plans within the region so it is expected thatwastewaterwillhavetobetransportedgreatdistancesinordertobetreated.TheNLCbelievesthatindustryshouldspecificallyidentify/nominatehowwastewaterswillbetreatedwithintheNorthernTerritoryandthatifthemoratoriumweretoberemovedoramendedthatthisshouldoccurpriortoanysuchchanges.

In the absence of a suitable facility to processwastewaterwithin theNorthern Territory theNLCbelievesthatthepetroleumcompaniesworkingintheregionshouldfundtheconstructionofaplantcapableofprocessingwastewatertoastandardsuitablefordischargeandifthemoratoriumweretoberemovedoramended,thatthisshouldoccurpriortothecommencementofhydraulicfracturingactivities.

7.4.2.2Groundwater

TheReportdiscussesthelikelihoodofgroundwatercontaminationandcommentsthatthechanceofspillsreachinggroundwateris lowgiventhedepthofanaquifer. Itshouldbenotedthatregionallysignificant aquifers such as the Tindall and Oolloo aquifers are covered by onshore petroleumexplorationpermitsandthatinsomeplacestheseaquifersareunconfined(wheretheformationorrockscontainingthegroundwatercomprisestheupper-mostgeologicallayer)andassucharepronetocontaminationfromspills.FromthisstatementitappearsasthoughthePanelisonlyconsideringa one-off spill ormultiple low-volume spills and doesn’t take into consideration of spills over an

11

unconfinedorshallowaquiferorspillsthatoccurconstantly in lowvolumesoveraperiodoftime,suchasaslowleakwithinacontainmentsump.

Given the recentexperienceof theKatherineShire in theNorthernTerritorywheregroundwatershave been contaminated with PFAS chemicals, it is the NLC’s belief that potential groundwatercontaminationfromanysourceanditsmanagementshouldbeofthehighestprioritytothePanel,Governmentandanypetroleumcompaniesoperatingintheregion.

TheReportdoeshighlight that ifwell engineered solutions are inplace thepotential for spill andcontamination is reduced, this is correct but to date, industry has not demonstrated how it willmanagewastewatersand this shouldoccurprior tocommencementofanyhydraulic fracturingorassociateddrillingactivities.

TheReport acknowledges that there is insufficient information available relating to the long termintegrity (post-abandonment) of wells that have been subject to hydraulic fracturing. The Reportalso acknowledgesmore information is needed on cement plugs, a technology that is a currentlyusedbyindustrytosealabandonedwells.Giventhelackoflongtermdatarelatingtomodernwelldesignandabandonmentpracticesandthepotential impactsofthesedesignsandpracticestothelongtermintegrityofwells,moreconsiderationshouldbegiventotheprecautionaryprinciple;thatistaking:

• preventiveactioninthefaceofuncertainty;• shiftingtheburdenofprooftotheproponentsofanactivity;• exploringawiderangeofalternativestopossiblyharmfulactions;and• increasingpublicparticipationindecisionmaking(Kriebeletal2001).

TheNLCurgesthePaneltoacknowledgeintheFinalReporttheuncertaintythatexistsaboutexactlyhowlongabandonedwellswillmaintaintheir integritybeforematerialsbreakdownandprovideapotentialpathwayforthecontaminationofgroundwater,evenwhenalltherequiredstandardshavebeenadheredtointheconstructionandabandonmentofsuchwells.

Chapter8:Land

Thischapteroutlinesthekey issuesandpreliminaryassessmentfor impactsofhydraulicfracturingupontheterrestrialelementsofthelandscape. ThefollowingvaluesareaddressedbytheReport:wilderness and biodiversity, integrity of sustaining ecological processes (such as fire and surfacedrainage)aswellasuseofthenaturallandscapeforpastoralandtourismenterprise.

Thepotential risks to landbasedassetshavebeen identified through literature reviewandpublicsubmissions.TheReportintroducessevenpotentialareasofimpactallofwhichrequiremitigation.The preliminary assessment defines the categories of low to high risk (page 65)which alignwithlegislateddefinitionsofandmaterialenvironmentalharmandseriousenvironmentalharmfor thePetroleumAct (PartVDivision2page112)whichare consistentwith theEnvironmentalOffencesandPenaltiesAct(refertothePetroleumEnvironmentalRegulations-explanatoryguideJuly2016page9).

ThefollowingsectionseachbeginwithasummaryofthejudgementsmadeintheReportfollowedbyNLCcomments.

12

8.3.1Landscapeamenity

The landscape amenity impacts are judged to have a high consequence in some contexts (e.g. ifdetractingfromiconicwildernessvalues). TheReportacknowledgesthatthereareguidelinesonlytodefinehighvalue areasofhighecologicalvalue‘nogozones’.TheReportsuggeststhatamenityimpacts can be mitigated firstly with clearly defined and legislated ‘no go zones’ with minimumoffsetsandsecondlywithamaximumdensityofdrillpads.

ThevastsizeandtheremotenessofthelandscapeareparticularfeaturesoftheNorthernTerritory.The potential values to be impacted and consequently proposedmitigations do not acknowledgealternativeecological values suchas the valueof vast areaswhichare relativelydevoidofhumanpopulations. Such areas are now highly rare on this planet and likely to become more so withincreasing human population and therefore should be placed in a global (Venter et al. 2015) andnationalcontext(AustralianHeritageCommission2003).

8.3.2Inappropriateplanningofregionaldevelopmentduetoinadequateknowledgeofbiodiversityassets

The impacts to biodiversitywithout further mitigation are judged to have a high likelihood andconsequencesduetoaninadequateknowledgebasetoguideinfrastructureplacement.Theimpactscouldbe significant,widespreadand long term. Themainmitigationsproposedare inventories toimprove the biodiversity knowledge base for infrastructure placement and management andthereforeavoidhighvalueareas.

A strategic regional approach such as undertaking a basin-wide survey and ongoingmonitoring issupportedasassistingwithidentifyingandpotentiallyavoidingcumulativeimpacts.

Therisks tobiodiversity in this sectionrequire furtherexplanationand justification forquantifyingthedegreeofrisk.Thereisbenefitinidentifyingthebroadscaleriskstobiodiversityasconsistingofinterconnectedcomponents.Forexamplearethemainimpactsbeinginterpretedasdirect(suchasinfrastructure with associated noise and dust etc.) or indirect (such as changed fire regimes andweedintrusion).

8.3.3Spreadofweeds

The impacts ofweed spread are judged to have high likelihood and consequences. The need forincreasedclarityaroundregulationandcompliance is required. Theneed foraholisticandbasin-wide approach is also acknowledged e.g. all land owners need to apply the same rigorousmanagementregime.

Itneedstobenotedthedefinitionof“weed”(aplantwhichisunwanted)issubjectiveanddependsonthenatureoftheplantandimpacttolanduseandothervalues(GriceandMartin2005).Thereare numerous examples of declared environmental weeds which were originally wanted in aparticularcontext(e.g.pastureorshadeplants)ormerelyescapedfromgardenswhichwereonlyformally recognised as requiring management once wide-spread and their impact revealed afterdecadesofbeinginthelandscape.

Many environmental weed species (e.g. paddy melons, ruby dock, red natal grass) which areunwanted for conservation areas or areas currently devoid of weeds are not declared underlegislationandthereforenotlegislativelyrequiredtobemanagediftheyspread.

13

Potential impacts to biosecurity as awhole needs to be considered:movement of substrates andwaterwhichcouldinvolvetranslocatingplantmaterialandantsaswellasincreasedroadsenablingrapidmovementofinvasivespeciesinremoteareas.

Vital components to managing weeds as a threatening process include: regional weed riskassessment(inclusiveofuseofnativesifmovingseedsfromdifferentlocalities),earlydetectionandrapidresponsetoexpansionofexistingweedinfestationormovementofweedsintonewlocalities(particularly weed free areas) as well as capacity to implement dedicated eradication programstargeting significant invasive species (either new to the Territory and or a region) in very remotelocalities(GriceandMartin2005).

There are very few assessments examining the effectiveness ofwash down areas as amitigationmethod. Reference to an evaluation in South Australia suggests the mitigation potential via thisstrategycanbequestionableduetonon-compliance(RuralSolutionsreportcitedinBiosecuritySA,2012,page8).

Territorywideandregionalcapacitytoaddresstheincreasedweedriskneedstobeconsideredforeffectivemitigationpotential.Nationallyamajorityofexpertsconsiderthatpathwaysmanagementstrategiesofweedspreadareinadequatelymanaged(Colemanetal.2011).Inadditionthecapacitytoimprovemanagementofmachineryandvehiclepathwaysofweedspreadareconsidereddifficulttoimprove(Colemanetal.2011).

8.3.4Changedfireregimes

The impacts of changed fire regimes are judged to have overall medium level of likelihood andpotentiallyhigh levelof consequencebut thiswouldvarydependingon thevegetation influenced(e.g. fire sensitive vegetation is at greater risk) and climatic zone (e.g. desert vs tropics)with theimpacts potentially less so in the tropics. Overall the fire impact is judged to be medium withopportunities to mitigate through fire management partnerships with regional land holders andpursuanceofcarbonemissionreductionprograms.

Themitigationpotentialneedstofactorintheneedforinvestmentaswellasthecapacitybuildingwithregionalparticipantstoestablishsuchprogramsinnewareas.

8.3.5Habitatlossandfragmentation

The impacts of changed habitat fragmentation at the regional scale are judged to have mediumlikelihood and consequence with three main avenues of mitigation: a maximum well density,progressiverehabilitationandoffsetting.

Thegreaterimpactscouldbeindirecte.g.fireandweedsintermsoffragmentationanddisturbanceduetodifficultymanageextensivealterationstoecologicalprocesses.

Offsetting is notmitigation for a risk processbut rather compensation for residual impacts (CrossSectorBiodiversityInitiative2015).

WhilefundingtoAboriginalrangerprogramsprovidesmultiplebenefits,developmentimpactswhichchange the state of the environment (e.g. invasive species) and increase the environmentalworkloadbeyondthelifeofaprojectoperatingwithinaregionhaslimitedbenefits.

Furtherinformation/clarificationisrequiredtomakeitclearhowtheInquiryhasreachedtheoveralljudgement on the degree of impact of habitat clearing and fragmentation. It would benefitdistinguishing the impacts from of an extensive road network from a road network with regulartraffic.

14

Extensiveroadnetworkscanfacilitatethemovementofnativeandexoticspecies,peopleaccessingareas which were previously inaccessible and also influence fire regimes and surface drainage(Donaldson&Bennett2004).Whileprogressiverehabilitationispromotedasbestpracticetherearenomechanismsforenforcingthepractice.Mitigationsneedtofactorincapacityforcomplianceandmonitoring.

Roadnetworkswithregulartrafficcanhavesignificantlocalisedimpacts.Collisionwithvehiclesandincreased avenues for predator concentration could potentially lead to localised extinction ofspecieswithasmallisolatedpopulationsandlowdispersalcapacity(refertoDonaldson&Bennett2004; Jones2000;DepartmentofEnvironmentandResourceManagement2009).The impactsaresimilartoexistingdevelopmentswithintheNorthernTerritory.

Mitigations for construction of pipelines (e.g. open trenches) are well documented but non-compliancecanbeanissueiftheindustrydoesnotself-regulateeffectively.

An increased infiltrationof roadsand linear infrastructure (e.g. pipeandpowerlines) in extremelyremote locationswarrantsan increase intheknowledgebaseforthemanyanddiffuse impactstoensureappropriatemanagement.

8.3.6Inappropriatelocationofinfrastructurewithinadevelopmentarea

The impacts of changed or inappropriate location of infrastructure are judged to have mediumlikelihoodandconsequence.

There is a short supply of practical soil erosion skills especially for semi-arid and tropicalenvironments. Alteration to surface drainage is a common issue with the placement ofinfrastructure. The Northern Territory has a number of recent examples of poor infrastructuredesign and construction to accommodate natural environmental variations (e.g. Western DesertHaulroad)providingevidencethatensuringcompliancewithrigorousstandardsinremoteareasisachallengeforregulatorybodies.

Recommendation10:Compartmentalisetheriskstobiodiversityasdirectandindirectimpacts.

Recommendation11:Broaden the scope tobiosecurity risks ingeneral movementof plantsandanimalwithsubstrateandwatermovements.

Recommendation 12:Accommodate in the risk assessment the limitations forweedmanagementmitigationsandcapacitytoimplementearlydetectionandinterventioninremotelocations.

Recommendation13:Theriskassessmentshouldfactorinthescience,monitoringandtimelagsforcapacitybuildingforthemitigationscopesforweeds,fireandspeciesmanagement.

15

Recommendation14:Compartmentalisetheimpactsofhabitatdisturbanceandfragmentationintodirectandindirectimpacts.

Recommendation 15: Consider the implications ensuring sound infrastructure design for erosionmanagementinremotelocalities.

Chapter9:GreenhouseGasEmissions

9.5Lifecycleemissions

This section of the Report only deals with production; leakage of GHG from oil and gas wellscontributes to fugitivegreenhousegasemissionsas identified inAlberta,Canada (Bachu2017andJackson2014).AssessmentofGHGemissionsshouldbeconsideredfromcradletograve,thatisallofthe aspects including exploration, construction, production, maintenance, decommissioning andpost-abandonmentshouldbetaken intoaccount ifanaccurateassessmentofGHGemissions is tobetabled.

Although the amount of GHG emissions generated has been compared between coal,unconventionalandconventionalgasasasourceofenergy,nocomparisontoalternativerenewableenergy sources has been undertaken.While the Panel has identified that electricity generated byunconventional gas produces less GHG emissions compared to coal-fired power generation, topresent a holistic perspective these emissions should be compared to alternatives from therenewableenergysectorsuchassolar.

If thePanel isgoingtomakecomparisonsthenrenewablesourcesofenergysupply,suchassolar,need to be included so that GHG emissions can be viewed across the full spectrum of industriesactiveinthedomesticenergysupplysector.BynotincludinginformationaboutGHGemissionsfromthe renewable energy sector, the Panelmay appear biased towards promoting the role of gas inreducingemissions.

Some discussion and analysis of abandoned or “orphaned wells” and GHG emissions should beincluded within the Final Report as it is of great concern to Indigenous people and the widercommunity.

Abandoned, orphaned and inactive wells are of particular concern especially in relation to themanagementandmaintenanceofthewellsandasapotentialsourceofGHGemissions.In2014theAlberta Energy Regulator (AER) calculated some 30,723 inactive wells within the Province withapproximately 40% of these being classed as non-compliant, that is wells that do not meet therequiredregulatorystandard.

“TheAERdeterminedthatthelargeinventoryofinactivewellsintheprovincelimitsalternativelanduse due to a lack of abandonment and reclamation. Because the wells are no longer producing,resourcerecovery isnotbeingoptimizedandnoroyaltiesarebeinggenerated.Thenon-compliantinactivewellscouldalsopotentially leadtounknownwellboreintegrityissues.Evennon-compliant

16

low-andmedium-riskwellshavethepotentialtocausethereleaseofenergyproductssuchasoilorgas.”

This statement from the AER identifies the potential for future problems both in terms of GHGemissions and land use restrictions and lessons learnt from Alberta should be adapted to anemerging onshore gas industry in the Northern Territory regardless of differences in appliedtechnologiesorconstructionandotherrelevantstandardsbetweenthesejurisdictions.

Chapter11:AboriginalPeopleandtheirCulture

ThispartoftheSubmissionissetoutinthreeparts,asfollows:

1. Thefirst,PartIprovidesgeneralcommentstoabroadrangeofissuesraisedinchapters11and12oftheReport.

2. PartIIprovidesamoredetailedanalysisandresponsetotheseissues.3. PartIIIprovidesaresponsetoeachofthequestionsforLandCouncilsraisedonpage92of

theReport.

PartI:Generalcommentstoissuesraisedinchapter11

The application of hydraulic fracturing technology provides the impetus for the growth of theonshore petroleum sector in the Northern Territory. This growth will undoubtedly manifest inenvironmentalimpacts,particularlyinthosepetroleumrichregionswheretheindustry’sfootprintisexpectedtobegreatest,suchastheBeetalooBasin.Assessmentsofthesocialandculturalimpactsof thisgrowthon theNorthernTerritory’s Indigenouspopulationshavenotbeenundertaken,andhavecertainlynotbeenundertakeninaccordancewithanyinternationallyrecognisedstandards.

TheNLC refers thePanel to theWorldBank’s2012PerformanceStandardsonEnvironmentalandSocial Sustainability, particularly Performance Standard 7 (Indigenous Peoples), and PerformanceStandard8(CulturalHeritage) .ThefulllistofpublicationsandothermaterialreferencedbytheNLCrelevanttosocialandculturalimpactassessmentisprovidedatAppendix1.

TheimpactsofdevelopmentandindustrialgrowthonIndigenouspeoplearegloballyrecognisedatthehighestlevelsasbeinganissueofsignificance2.

Recommendation16:ThatsocialandculturalimpactassessmentsareundertakenovertheBeetaloosub-basin and other prospective petroleum-rich regions of the Northern Territory and that theseassessments:-beundertakenbyasuitablyqualifiedandindependentparty;- be targeted to understand impacts and risks posed to Indigenous people, follow establishedparticipatorymethodologies,andbeconductedinaccordancewithleadingpracticestandards;and- becompletedandtheirfindingreleasedtothepublicbeforeanyfurtherdevelopmentoccursandbeforeanymaterialimpactsarerealised.

1InternationalFinanceCorporationWorldBankGroup2012IFCPerformanceStandardsonEnvironmentalandSocialSustainabilityEffectiveJanuary120122UnitedNations2008,UnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples

17

TheReportfailstoidentifyallpotentialculturalrisksandimpactsassociatedwiththedevelopmentofanonshoregasindustrythatareanticipatedasaresultoftheapplicationofhydraulicfracturingtechnology. Among the risks not adequately considered in the Report are those associated withinadequatepublicallyaccessibleandreliableinformationabouthydraulicfracturingandtheonshoregasindustry.

Chapter 11 of the Report rightly argues that wide-scale information dissemination targeted atIndigenous audiences is critical. The Report iswrong to imply that Land Councils have a primaryresponsibilityinrespectofpublicandcommunityeducation.Organisationalresponsibilitytoprovidemembersof thepublicwithopportunity tobe informedandparticipate inpublic discourse aboutdevelopment rests with government and civil society. Government cannot divide or abdicate itspublicdutyonthebasisofraceortransferitsresponsibilitiesthatpertaintoIndigenouspeopleandcommunities.

TheNLC’s statutory role in this regard is limited to providing information to Aboriginal people inrespect of specific petroleum exploration and production tenement applications and whereagreementsareinplaceforgrantedtenements.ThedisseminationofinformationtotheIndigenouspublic in respect of a growingonshorepetroleum industry does not fallwithin the scopeof LandCouncil’sstatutoryfunctionsandasaresulttheNLCiscurrentlyneithermandatednorresourcedtoundertakethiswork.

TheReport’sdiscussionofcultural impacts is largely focusedonthepotential risksand impacts tosacred sites. This issue is critically important, but is certainly not the only aspect of Indigenousculture that is likely tobe impactedby thedevelopmentof anonshore gas industry. ThePanel isreferredtotheNLC’soriginalsubmissiontotheInquiry(30April2017)whichhighlights:

- impactson livelihoodsandconnectiontocountrywhereaccesstotraditional landsarerestricted or otherwise compromised by the presence of the petroleum industry andlocationofassociatedinfrastructure;

- impactsonrelationshipswithcountrywherefragmentationof landscapesoccurs (suchas roads or other infrastructure transecting culturally significant country such asdreamingtracks);

- impacts on traditional knowledge, including the intergenerational transfer of thisknowledge3;

- impactson the social andcultural fabricof kin-basedcommunitieswhere thebenefitsandopportunitiesassociatedwithsuchdevelopmentsarenotequitablydistributed;and

- recognising there are strongly held and contested views on both sides of the debate(both supportive of and against fracking), the direct engagement or recruitment ofAboriginal persons by individuals/organisations with an interest on either side of thedebate may pose a risk to social cohesion and to relationships/roles associated withtraditionalkinshipsystemsthatmayexistbetweensuchindividuals.

The informationprovidedabove isnot intended toconstituteacomprehensive listofallpotentialcultural and social impacts relevant to theonshoregas industry in theNorthernTerritory. It doeshowever effectively demonstrate the diversity of aspects fundamental to Indigenous society andculture which could potentially be impacted upon by the development of this industry and thatthese impactsarenot limited to sacred sites. It is theNLC’sview thatevenwhensacred sitesare

3Thispotentialimpactispredicatedontheassumptionthattraditionalknowledgemaybeimpactedbyrestrictedaccesstocountryandthefragmentationofnaturalhabitatsandculturallandscapes.

18

affordedeffectiveprotection,itiscriticalthattheInquiryPanel,GovernmentandIndustryaffordfullconsiderationtothemitigationofallpotentialnegativeimpactstoIndigenoussocietyandculture.

Adequate identification of the scope of risks and impacts will only be achieved as part of acomprehensive, targeted impact assessment process. To achieve this outcome a full assessmentprocess including adequate scoping is recommended (as detailed above). This work should beconsideredbythePaneltoinformrecommendationsintheFinalReportfortheadequatemitigationandmanagementofthefullscopeofrisksandimpacts.

PartII:Specificcommentstoissuesraisedinchapter11

TheReportidentifiesanumberofissuesrelatedtoculturalimpacts,specifically:

• provisionofadequateinformationtoAboriginalpeople;• Aboriginalhealth;• disruptionofculturalpractices;and• culturalrisksrelatedtoecosystemhealth.

Aboriginalpeoplenotinformedenoughtounderstandrisksorbenefits

Thereisanurgentneedforthedisseminationofrelevant,accurateinformationtargetingAboriginalcommunities,inrespectofbothhydraulicfracturingandtheonshorepetroleumindustryingeneral.Pre-emptivepubliceducationcampaignsabout industrialactivitiesarenottheresponsibilityoftheLandCouncilsand itwouldbeerroneous for the Inquiry tocontinuepublishing informationtothecontrary.WhiletheNLCretainsanactiveinterestintheengagementofAboriginalpeopleinpublicdiscourse,publiceducationaboutprivateenterprise isnottheresponsibilityoftheNLC,nor is theNLCresourcedtoundertakesuchtasks.

UnderboththeALRAandtheNativeTitleAct(NTA),theNLChasstatutoryresponsibilitiestoconsultwithpeoplewhohold interestswithina circumscribedarea,whenanapplication for amineralorpetroleumexplorationorproduction title is received. In respectof informationdissemination, thestatutoryresponsibilityoftheLandCouncilsistoidentifyandconsultwithAboriginalpeoplewhoaretraditional land owners or native title holders of a specific onshore petroleum exploration orproductiontitleapplicationarea4.Attheseconsultations,toensurethatpeopleareabletomakeaninformeddecision,theNLCprovidesunbiasedandaccurateinformation.

This consultation process can only be triggered by the lodgement of a petroleum or mineralsexploration or production/mining title application. The capacity to conduct these consultations islimited by constraints such as seasonal and cultural restrictions to community access and LandCouncil resources. It should also be kept in mind that the NLC has a broad range of statutoryfunctions beyond those applicable to the onshore petroleum sector. The ability to undertakeconsultations inrelationtoonshorepetroleumapplications is furtherdependentonaproponent’swillingnesstoengagewiththeLandCouncilandtheircapacitytofundtherequiredconsultations.

Indigenoustraditionallandownersandnativetitleholderswithrightstocountryoverwhichthereisa current petroleum title application comprise only a small portion of the Northern Territory’sIndigenouspopulation.TheentireIndigenouspopulationoftheNorthernTerritorycouldpotentiallyexperience the impacts associated with growth in the petroleum industry resulting from theapplicationofhydraulic fracturingtechnology.These impactswillbeexperiencedbypeoplewhose

4Orpeopleotherwisedirectlyaffected,forexampleviaproponentaccessandotherancillaryinfrastructureorneighbouringestates.

19

traditional landsarenotsubjecttopetroleumexplorationorproductionactivities,andwithwhomthe NLC would not be required to consult with about any petroleum exploration permit orproduction licence proposal. Because general public or community education is not a functioncontemplatedbytheALRAortheNTA,theNLCisnotresourcedtoundertakepre-emptivepublicorregionaleducationcampaigns,suchasthatsuggestedbythePanelonpage90oftheReport.

Thereisariskofpoliticisationofpetroleumconsultationssuchasthatdescribedonpage90oftheReport,howeverthe injectionofpoliticisedrhetoric intoAboriginalcivilsociety isnotamatter forLandCouncilstoengineerorcontrol.Theseprocessescananddohaveanincrediblydisruptiveeffecton Aboriginal culture and society and on local group decision making processes and this impact(alongwithrealisticmitigationmeasures) issomethingthatshouldbeconsideredbytheInquiryaspart of a holistic and comprehensive impact assessment process. TheNLCwill consider providingfurtherinformationonrequest,shouldthePanelseektofurthercontemplatethisissue.

The NLC notes that the Report’s commentary on the former Muckaty nuclear waste repositoryproposal is both poorly informed and irrelevant to discussion on hydraulic fracturing. Thiscommentary should be omitted from the Final Report. Furthermore it is abundantly clear theaccountpresentedintheInterimReportdoesnotfullycapturethecomplexityofviewsheldbythetraditionalAboriginalownersinrelationtotheMuckatymatter.

TheNLCeffectivelyconsultswithandinformstraditionalAboriginalownersandnativetitleholderswhoarerequiredtomakedecisionsinrespectofparticularonshorepetroleumapplications.Whilemost Indigenous Territorians may not be required to come to an NLC meeting in respect of apetroleumexplorationorproductionproposal,allwillpotentiallybeaffectedbythegrowthofthisindustryandmayhaveviewsinrelationtohydraulicfracturing.AsarguedbytheReport,allhavearighttobebetterinformed.Toachievethisaimitisrecommendedthatthepeakbody,orbodiesasthecasemaybe,withresponsibilityforpubliceducationandengagementinrelationtotheonshoregas industry allocate sufficient resources to ensure the general public, including IndigenousTerritorians,arebetterinformedaboutthisindustry.

PotentialadverseimpactsonthehealthofIndigenouscommunities

TheReport’sdiscussionofthisthemetakesplaceacrosschapters5,7,10and12.It isofnotethatthescopeofsuchimpactsarenot limitedtophysicalhealthas it isunderstoodinmodernmedicalterms,andmorenuancedriskstocommunityhealtharenotallgoingtobeamelioratedbyenforcedbuffer zones around residential areas or by the protection of sacred sites. Certain impacts tocommunityhealthareboundup in the fabricof Indigenous lawandcustomandkin-basedsocietyand are discussed further under points a) to e) below. These issues will only be afforded dueconsideration as part of a comprehensive basin-wide impact assessment as recommended by theNLC.

Potentialdisruptiontotraditionalculturalpractices

The Report fairly acknowledges the diversity of potential threats to traditional cultural practices,including fragmentation of the landscape and diverse understandings of causality and of theinterconnectednessofseeminglydiverselandscapes(particularlyinrelationtotraditionalAboriginalbeliefsaboutaquifers,geologicalformationsandothersubterraneanfeatures).Thisdiscussionalsorelates to comments in the Report about the potential impacts to Aboriginal culture beinginterrelatedtotheimpactstoecosystems,i.e.negativeimpactstoecosystemsthatmayresultintheimpairment of ecosystems services such as environmental water flow/ aquifer recharge and

20

associated flow-on impacts to Aboriginal culture. This issue is poorly researched in the NorthernTerritoryandwarrantsfurtherinvestigation.

TheReportstatesthat“…therearewellestablishedlawsandsystemsforrecognisingandprotectingAboriginaltraditionalinterestsintheirland…”,followedby“…therehavebeencasesintheNorthernTerritory where Traditional Owners have rejected mining proposals because of their traditionalbeliefs about what lies underneath” (p.91). These statements may be misleading unless properlyqualified.While therearewellestablished lawsonAboriginal LandTrust (subject toALRA),and inrelationtosacredsites(subjecttotheNorthernTerritoryAboriginalSacredSitesAct),muchoftheNorthernTerritory isnotAboriginalLandTrust land,orasacredsite.ManyAboriginalpeoplehavetraditional interests in lands subject only to the NTA, whereon Indigenous people’s capacity tocontrolindustrialdevelopmentsarelimited.AviewpointoftenexpressedtotheNLCisthattheNTAdoesnotaffordstrongprotectiontotraditionalAboriginallandinterests;undertheNTAthereisnorighttovetopetroleumorotherdevelopmentproposals.

Risks and impacts to the continuation of cultural practices will necessarily be subject to diverserange of variables, including but not limited to local factors such as land tenure and customaryknowledge. It isrecommendedtheanalysisandmitigationofsuchrisksbeundertakenatthe locallevel (small scale engagement with local communities and aboriginal land owners/native titleholders) toenablea full considerationof suchvariables. ThePanel’s view that “…lawsprotectingAboriginalculturalheritageshouldbebetter integratedwithlegislationprotectingtheenvironmentandregulatingthepetroleumandgasindustries”isimpossibletoassesswithanyveracityuntilsuchtimeastheactuallegislativereformsbeingproposedarepresentedfordiscussion.

PartIII:NLCresponsetoquestionspresentedonpage92oftheInterimReport

The NLC thanks the Panel for the invitation to submit furtherwritten evidence pertaining to our“…experience and understanding of risks arising from damage to or interference with culturallysignificant sites”(p.92). In response theNLCwishes todrawattention to theprecedingdiscussion,whichhighlightsthatwhereastheprotectionofculturallysignificantsitesisimportant,itisbutoneof themultitudeof aspects of Aboriginal society and culture that needs to be considered to fullyunderstandandmitigatetherisksandimpactsofhydraulicfracturingandtheassociatedgrowthanddevelopmentoftheonshorepetroleumsectorintheNorthernTerritory.

Followingare theNLC’s responses to thepoints inquestion raisedonpage92of theReport (andsummarised in bold below) specifically for the Land Councils and the Aboriginal Areas ProtectionAuthority(AAPA)toaddress:

Cultural significance (if any) of sub-surface features: sacred sites include sub-surface features.Ancestral beings who established law and custom in some instances traversed underground toemergeandoftenre-enterthesub-surfaceelsewhereinthelandscape.Somesacredsitesareknownasthefinalrestingplaceforsuchbeingsandinthesecasesthesub-surfacemaybeconsideredtobethemostcriticalandsensitiveaspectofasite.Therearenumerousrecordingsofsub-surfacerockfeaturesandwaterbodiesbeingidentifiedassacredsites.Itisneithernecessarynorappropriatetoreferencespecificexamples inthisparticularpublicforum,butrathertonotethatunderNorthernTerritorylegislationallsacredsitesareprotected,includingthesacredsub-surfaceelementsoftheseplaces. Some uncertainty does exist with regard to the protection afforded by legislation toceremonial groundsand the ‘dreaming tracks’ (routesof travel often subterranean)ofancestralbeingsthatconnectsacredsitesandotherculturalfeaturesofthelandandseascapes.Wheredoesasacred site end and a dreaming track start? How deep down does the subterranean feature of a

21

scaredsiteordreamingtrackextend?Whatdistance‘bufferzone’isadequatetoprotectsuchsites?Thesequestionscanonlybeansweredbytheparticularpeoplewithculturalresponsibilityfor,andauthority to speakonbehalfof,aparticular siteor tradition.Hence theneed fordetailed culturalsurveysandassessmentstobeundertakeninresponsetoeachspecificactivityproposedbyonshorepetroleum projects such as geologicalmapping, soil or stream sediment sampling, environmentalmonitoring, seismic surveys, drilling, hydraulic fracturing and infrastructure construction (roads,pipelines,compressorstations,laydownyards,etc.).

Culturalvaluesrelatingtotraditionallysignificantsites,includingtheiramenityvalue:traditionallysignificantsitesdonotonlyholdculturalvalue,butareboundtothespiritualandphysicalwellbeingof Indigenous people. Damage to sacred sites can have adverse impacts onmental and physicalhealth, social cohesion and economies of Indigenous peoples. For this reason it is important tounderstand the significance of a site to the relevant individuals, estate groups, communities andregion (what is its relevance in a local and regional context? Is it dangerous? What are theconsequencesofdisturbance?).Suchanunderstandingbetterinformsplanningandenablesspecificrisk avoidance and mitigation measures to be developed, rather than comparing relative valuesbasedonatallyoftheindividualnumberofvaluesaffordedtosuchsites.

NatureandextentoftheimpactsandrisksthathydraulicfracturingandtheassociatedactivitiescouldhaveonculturalvaluesintheNorthernTerritory:thePanelisreferredtochapter7(pp.28 31)oftheNLC’sprevioussubmissiontotheInquiry(30April2017)whichprovidesinformationaboutthe diversity of potential cultural impacts related to hydraulic fracturing and the growth of theonshorepetroleumsector.

Isanyadditionalworkrequiredtounderstandthenatureandextentofthoserisks:commentarytochapter 11 provided in part 1 (above) of the Submission explicates our recommendation that thenatureandextentof the risksandpotential impactsbeanalysedviaa targeted,participatoryandcomprehensive impact assessment process undertaken in accordance with leading practicestandards.Suchanassessmentwouldbethebestforumwithinwhichtoscope,identifyandanalysehazardsandrisksandtoenableavoidanceormitigationofthediverseandinterconnectedcultural,socialandeconomicimpactsunderdiscussion.

Approach taken to mitigate the identified impacts and risks: the NLC is not an agency withresponsibilityfor,orexpertisein,culturalorsocialimpactassessmentandriskmitigation.Thereisawide body of academic and appliedwork in this field, someofwhich has been referenced in theSubmission.AnalysisofthismaterialwillrevealthatimpactassessmentforIndigenouspopulationsisa field in which there is a growing body of expertise, particularly in working with Indigenouscommunities on the social, economic and cultural impacts of major development projects. It isrecommended that a full and proper investigation is undertaken by suitably qualified experts, toidentify theapproach required tomitigate the impactsand risks toAboriginal cultureandsociety.Anysuchprocessshouldnecessarilybeparticipatory,with Indigenouspeopleaffordedappropriateopportunity to contribute to both the identification of hazards and potential risks and to thedevelopment of plans by which such risks can be avoided or mitigated. It should be noted thatalthoughahigh-levelbasin-wideimpactassessmentwouldbebeneficialasastartingpoint,furtherimpactassessmentsandmitigationplanswillberequiredwhendetaileddevelopmentproposalsarepresentedso that local risksand impactscanbe identified in relation to thespecificdevelopmentproposaland suitablemanagementplansdevelopedand implemented.Again thisassessmentandplanningshouldincluderelevantIndigenousparticipantsfromtheverybeginning.

22

Adequacyandeffectivenessofthese[mitigation]measuresandanygapsinthecurrentapproachtoprotectingculturally significant sites thatwarrantsattentionby the Inquiry: theReport statesthat “current knowledge by the Aboriginal community is inadequate” (p.90) and further suggeststhatAboriginalpeopledonothaveaccesstoenoughinformationtobeinformedaboutthepotentialrisksandimpactsofhydraulicfracturing.TheNLChasarguedthattheInquiryhasfailedtoundertakethe necessary steps to fully scope the diversity of social, cultural and economic impacts onIndigenous Territorians. In this regard the terms of reference for the social and economic impactassessmentsprocuredby the Inquiryare inadequate.The Inquiry is referred to thepreviouspoint(above), wherein it is evident that considerable additional investment and effort is required andrecommendedbytheNLCtounderstandandmitigatethefull rangeofpotentialrisksand impactsposedtoIndigenouspeopleintheNorthernTerritory.

RiskstomaintenanceoftraditionsthatunderpinrecognitionofownershiprightsunderboththeALRA and the NTA: development of the petroleum industry anticipated in prospective areasresultingfromtheapplicationofhydraulic fracturingtechnologyposesriskstothemaintenanceoftraditions underpinning Aboriginal land ownership in diverse ways, including but not necessarilylimitedtoeachpointpresentedbelow.

a. The intergenerational transferof cultural knowledgeand law is highly reliantonaccess tocountry. Fragmentation of the landscape by the development of gas exploration andproductioninfrastructure,changinglandscapesandecosystemsasaresultofindustrialscale(basin-wide) developments, and restricting access to particular areas as a result of suchactivity,allhavealevelofimpactsonpeople’scapacityandinclinationtoaccesscountry.

b. Indigenous land ownership is communal, based on kinship networks, and most ofteninheritedbydescent.Landowninggroupsaretypicallycomprised,likeallfamilies,ofpeoplewith a diversity of worldviews and opinions on any given issue. As in all families, acrossgenerations and genders particularly, individuals may consider an issue such as hydraulicfracturingwithverydifferentapproaches.Decision-makingprocessesareuniquetogroups,butareeffectiveprocessesastheyareunderpinnedby(locallydistinct)traditional lawandcustom.Centraltolawandcustom,andtothewellbeingandhealthoffamilies, iscountry.Therefore,oftenwhenadevelopmententailsenvironmentalchangeandanelementofrisk,it is approachedby indigenous landowning groupswith the greatest of care and caution.This is because while Indigenous people aspire to local and regional economic growth,opportunitiesforemploymentandotherpotentialbenefits,theyalsohaveresponsibilitiestoconsider the custodianship of their country and traditional law and custom which areinalienable,andwillbeinheritedbytheirdescendantsforalltime.Inthiscontextdecisionsandconsultationsaroundonshorepetroleumproposalswillattimesinjectstressesintothesocialandcultural fabricof land-owninggroups,andcan impactuponthedecisionmakingprocess itself. This risk can be realised where a group is required to make decisions inrespectofcommunallandownershipinresponsetodevelopmentproposalsunderboththeNTAandALRA.

c. The injection of benefits and opportunities into particular land owning groups or localcommunities arising from resource development projects, where such developments aremajor,cancreate localandregionaldiscrepancies inwealth.Thiscancause intraand interfamily/community stress among Aboriginal people, who are typically bound to particulareconomicmodes and relationships within and between families and communities by kin-basedsystems.

23

d. Indigenous law and custom, including that law which pertains to land ownership, wasestablished by ancestral beings at the time of creation. At times these ancestral beingstraversed the country. Aspects of Aboriginal law, including that law which pertains to agroup’s or individual’s land rights and responsibilities, relate directly to these travels,including the routes or ‘paths’ they took. Sacred sites are critically important elements ofindigenousculturalheritagebutitmustbeunderstoodthattocarveoutthesesitesfromthebroader interconnected and storied landscape in which they were formed may beconsideredtobedeeplyflawedinAboriginallogic.Theprocessofdrawinglinesonmaps,todelineateasacredsitesoitmaybeidentifiedseparatelyfromassociateddreamingtrack(s)and the rest of the cultural and physical landscape seems illogical in a traditional contextbecause of the intricate and inalienable interconnectivity of these features. At a regionallevel, it is evident that protection of sites as ‘islands’ while allowing the dreaming tracksbetween them tobe subject to significantdisturbance, canhavedirect (physical andnon-physical)impactsonthetraditionsandculturalpracticesassociatedwiththesesitesandonthe Aboriginal people with connections to, and responsibility for the protection andmaintenanceof,thesesitesandfeatures.

e. RetainingcontroloftheirancestrallandsandhavingopportunitytoparticipatemeaningfullyinnegotiationsinrespectoflanduseisthemosteffectivewaytoenableIndigenouspeopletodeveloptheirownmeansofavoidingormitigatingimpactsrelatedtoonshorepetroleumexplorationandproductionprojects.Facilitationofrobustparticipatoryprocessestoenableeffectiveconceptualisationandinformedgroupdecision-makingamongAboriginalpeopleisintegral to thedevelopmentofconditions thatbest suit the locationoverwhichanygivendevelopmentisproposedtooccur.

ApproachtakenbyLandCouncilstomitigatetheimpactsandrisksidentifiedaboveinconditionsplaced onmining operations on Aboriginal land: this area has been subject to a wide range ofacademic research. Veto provisions based on informed consent apply to both minerals andpetroleum exploration applications over Aboriginal Land and so under the ALRA Aboriginal landowners who do not want exploration or mining/production activities on their land have theopportunitytosaynoandtovetoanysuchproposal.TheLandCouncil’sapproachtothesemattersis to ascertain the viewsof the relevantAboriginalpersonswith interests in the land subject toapetroleumtitleapplicationandprovidethemwithaccurateandunbiasedinformationtoensurethatdecisionsaremadebythecorrectpeople.

Chapter12:SocialImpacts

The Inquiry has commissioned and procured a social impact assessment framework with theBeetaloosub-basinasacasestudy.ThiscontractwasawardedtoCoffeyServicesAustraliaPtyLtd(Coffey). Coffey are utilising a largely pre-designedmodel or toolkit to undertake this work. Theinvestigation intosocial impactshasbeenshapedbytheBoomtowntoolkit5,whichwasdevelopedbytheUniversityofQueenslandtoanalysesocialimpactsuponruraltownshipsinQueenslandthatcomprise of populations who are majority non-Indigenous. This modelling is not relevant to thesocio-economic reality of many townships in the Northern Territory with majority Indigenouspopulations, including those in and around the Beetaloo basin. The NLC has been informed this

5https://boomtown-toolkit.org/about

24

toolkitmaybeadjustedtomeasurevariablesrelevanttomajorityIndigenouscommunities,howeverthe Inquiry has not provided any assurance that such adjustments would be applied in theapplicationofthistoolkitfortheworkoftheInquiry.ItistheNLC’spreliminaryviewthatthissocialimpactassessmenthasfailedtoeffectivelyscopeandassesstheimpactsofhydraulicfracturingandassociatedgrowthoftheonshorepetroleumindustryontheIndigenouspeopleandcommunitiesoftheNorthernTerritory.

TheReport separatesdiscussionof (Indigenous) cultural impacts andbroader social impacts,withthe latter considering the wider Northern Territory society. It is generally accepted that forIndigenousAustralians,culturalandsocialhealthareboundandco-dependant6.Theundertakingofseparate investigations into the a) cultural and b) social impacts of hydraulic fracturing onIndigenousTerritorianswilloverlylimitandcompromiseeffectivenessofbothinvestigations.

Athorough,holisticandparticipatoryapproachtoimpactassessmentandanalysisshould:

i) targettheNorthernTerritory’sIndigenouspeople;ii) accordwithleadingpractice7;iii) beproperlyresourced;iv) beundertakenpriortotheimpactsoccurring;andv) beaffordedsufficienttimetoyieldmeaningfulresultsandfacilitateengagementofboth

the general public, peak Aboriginal representative bodies and relevant governmentagencies.

Chapter13:EconomicImpacts

There is very little reliable and accessible data onwhich to underpin the assumptions needed tosupportmodelling of the economic impacts of both developing and not developing theNorthernTerritory’s onshore unconventional shale gas reserves. Even the most advanced of explorationprojects in the Beetaloo sub-basin do not have sufficient data to proceed from exploration todevelopment.Forthisreasonitisdifficulttoseehowanymeaningfulordefinitiveconclusionsmaybe drawn regarding the potential economic impacts of this industry. Any conclusion orrecommendationsformedasaresultofthisassessmentwouldnecessarilybelimitedandsubjecttohigh margins of error and other uncertainties. Any conclusions made in the Final Report abouteconomicimpactsmustbequalifiedbynotingapaucityofdata,marginsoferrorandotherrelevantfactors.

For these reasons the NLC is sceptical about both the validity and usefulness of the informationpresentedinthissectionoftheReportandanyadditional informationaboutanticipatedeconomicimpactstobepresentedintheforthcomingFinalReport.TheNLCrecommendstheFinalReportbeupfrontaboutthelimitationsoftherelevantfiscalandotherdatasetsrelieduponbytheInquiryorContractors undertaking work on behalf of the Inquiry, including for the Economic ImpactAssessmentworkbeingundertakenbyACILAllenConsultingPty Ltd (ACILAllen).At suchanearlystageintheexplorationcycleitisinevitablethatveryhighlevelsofuncertaintyanderrorwillapply

6AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofthePrimeMinisterandCabinet~2013“CULTUREANDCLOSINGTHEGAP”Factsheet7InternationalFinanceCorporationWorldBankGroup2012IFCPerformanceStandardsonEnvironmentalandSocialSustainabilityEffectiveJanuary12012

25

toall forecasteconomic impactsrelatedtotheonshoreunconventionalgassector intheNorthernTerritory.

Chapter 13 does not appear to describe any specific analysis of economic impacts on Indigenouspeople.AsignificantbodyofworkexiststhatdescribesIndigenouseconomies,andthewayinwhichIndigenous economies engage with the type of economic growth and industrial development asprojectedintheReport8.TheNLCisdisappointedthepotentialeconomicaspectsof,andrisksandimpactsto,Indigenouslivelihoodsandculturalvalueshavenotbeenincluded,adequatelydescribedorsubjecttoasuitablelevelofinterrogationinthissectionoftheReport.

Chapter14:RegulatoryReform

Chapter14addressestheissuesrelatingtoregulatoryreform thatis,howtheNorthernTerritoryGovernmentmightregulatehydraulicfracturingandthebroaderonshoreoilandgasindustry.

Aspreviouslysubmitted9, theNLChasdoubtsabout theabilityofexistingGovernment, regulatoryand landmanagementbodies in theNorthernTerritory in regard to themanagementof therapiddevelopment of an onshore petroleum industry. Furthermore, the NLC is of the view thatamendments are required to be made to the existing regulatory framework and legislativeinstruments in order to adequately address the development and regulation of an onshorepetroleumindustry.

ItisrelevanttotheeffectivenessoftheInquirythatsignificantreformtoenvironmentallegislationintheNorthernTerritory(EnvironmentalReforms)andtheInquiryarebeingconductedconcurrently.Ideallyanyproposedamendmentstoenvironmental legislationrelevanttotheonshorepetroleumsectorwouldhavebeenpresented for considerationby thePaneland stakeholdersprior to,oratleastduring,thetermoftheInquiryandwellbeforetheFinalReportisdrafted.Hadthisoccurreditwould have better enabled the Inquiry to achieve its intended goals, especially in relation to theInquiry’sTermsorReference(ToR)items1and5,wherealackofknowledgeabouttheexactnatureoftheEnvironmentalReformsbeingproposedcanreasonablybeconsideredanimpedimenttotheInquiry. TheGovernment and other stakeholders should be cognisant that findings of the Inquiryrelated to regulatory reform may be limited in their application by uncertainty surrounding theEnvironmentalReforms.

14.3.2 PetroleumSchedule

Presently,thePetroleumSchedule(Schedule),whichoperatesinconjunctionwiththePetroleumActandPetroleumEnvironmentRegulations(Regulations),isnotlegallyenforceableanditsapplicabilitytoaparticularoperationoroperator is subject toMinisterialdiscretion. TheHunterReports from2012and2016bothrecommendphasingouttheSchedule.SubsequentlytheDepartmentofPrimaryIndustryandResources(DPIR)hascommittedtoreplacingtheSchedulewithregulationsgoverningpetroleumexplorationandproductionactivities.

TheNLC supports the enshrinement of the Schedule into regulation, however the process shouldincludea reviewof the contentsof theScheduleand regulationsand this shouldbeenactedasamatterofpriorityandpriortotheabolitionoftheSchedule.8Eg.Altman,JandKerins,S2015PeopleonCountry;VitalLandscapes,IndigenousFuturesTheFederationPress9NLCSubmissiontotheInquiry,30April2017.

26

Recommendation17:ThecontentsofthePetroleumScheduleshouldbereviewedandsubsequentlyenshrinedinregulations,whichwillreplacethePetroleumSchedule.

14.3.3PetroleumEnvironmentRegulations

The NLC is concerned that the Petroleum Act, Regulations and the associated Schedule do notcontain specific and adequate processes and safeguards for assessing and managing risks andimpacts associated with onshore petroleum activities. The Report states that the Regulationsimplement many recommendations from various previous reports, in particular the 2015 HawkeReport. Specifically, the Regulations “require stakeholder engagement as a precursor to thesubmissionofanenvironmentplan”.

TheRegulationsshouldbeamendedtospecificallyprovidefor:

1. meaningful and appropriate community engagement with traditional Aboriginal owners andotherIndigenousstakeholders;and

2. theincorporationoftraditionalAboriginalknowledge,

asmandatorymeasuresrequiredaspartoftheprocessforthedevelopmentofenvironmentplansforanyonshorepetroleumactivities.

Meaningfulcommunityengagement

Culturallyappropriateconsultationisessentialandlackinginthepresentsystem,wherethereisnorequirementforon-countryconsultation (local totheareaofproposedactivity) inthestakeholderengagementprocess.Currently,crucialdataisoftennotreleaseduntillateintheprocess,andthereis not sufficient time for it to be adequately reviewed, let alone communicated to Indigenousstakeholderswhoaredirectlyaffected.Documentationshouldatminimumincludeaplanoutliningculturally appropriate consultation to be undertaken on-country prior to conclusion of theengagementprocess,andongoingthroughoutthetermoftheproject.

As outlined above, traditional knowledge can make a valuable contribution to environmentaloutcomes and the engagement process. In keepingwith leading practice principles, it is essentialthattheenvironmentalplanningandassessmentandprocessesconsidersocialandculturalaspectsasintegraltothecomprehensiveanalysisofallrelevantrisksandimpacts.Historyhasshownthatinthe Northern Territory, during ‘consultation’ with Indigenous stakeholders, project developmentsarepresentedasfaitaccompli,withlittleopportunitytoinputanychangesthatmightbenecessarytoprotectculturalandsocialvalues.

AsurveyofrecentToRandEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)guidelinesissuedbytheNorthernTerritoryEnvironmentProtectionAgency (NTEPA)doesnotdemonstratea consistentor in-depthapproach to engaging Aboriginal people on questions regarding the risk a project might pose totraditional knowledge and/or Aboriginal culture and society. The main focus continues to be onprotectingpastaspectsofculture(i.e.heritage)andnotthelivingaspectsthatrepresentthevaluesofcurrentAboriginalsociety.Thefocusforenvironmentalplanningshouldbeshiftedtostructuredgathering,managementanduseoftraditionalknowledgeviaparticipatoryengagement.

AfullyparticipatoryengagementandplanningprocessthatcarriesAboriginalpeoplethroughprojectdevelopment from initial planning to project closure and beyond, encompassing environmental

27

impact assessments, risk analysis and management at all phases of the project would result ifleadingpracticeconsultationmethodologiesweremandatedintheNorthernTerritory.Participationattheplanningandmanagement(operational)levelofferstheopportunityforAboriginalpeopletomanagetheirculturalestateandapplytraditionalknowledgeacrossthewholeoftheproject’slifeinapracticalandmeaningfulway(Smith2016) 0.

The CLC and NLC have recommended that environmental assessment and approval legislationshould include an obligation on the proponent to consider how they engage with AboriginalcommunitiesandtraditionalAboriginalownersandthatthey:

• workwiththecommunitywhenplanningandconductingresearch;

• seekthepriorandinformedconsentofthecommunitypriortoacquisitionofinformation;

• collecttraditionalAboriginalknowledgeincollaborationwiththecommunity;

• respecttraditionalAboriginalknowledgeandAboriginalintellectualpropertyrights;and

• bringtraditionalAboriginalknowledgeandscientificknowledgetogether.

ThesameobligationsshouldbeplacedonproponentsinrelationtoengagementforenvironmentalplansundertheRegulations.

AkeyelementoftheengagementplanneedstoinvolveengagingwithAboriginalcommunitiesandshouldbeconductedinaccordancewithguidelinesonmatterssuchas:

• apresumptionofon-countryconsultation;

• theneedforplainEnglishandlocallanguageversionsofdocuments,orpartsofdocuments;

• theimportanceofculturallyappropriatepractices;

• who is to be consulted, including traditional Aboriginal owners and diverse Aboriginalcommunities;and

• resourcesprovidedtofacilitateengagement.

Failure to complete consultation reports and engagement plans adequately (for example, inaccordancewiththerelevantguidelines)shouldultimatelybepartofthereviewandassessmentoftheadequacyofenvironmentplansbytheMinister.

Incorporationoftraditionalknowledge

Thesignificanceof fully integratingtraditionalknowledge into theenvironmentalplanningprocessshouldnotbeunderestimated.Aboriginaltraditionalknowledgehasdevelopedovermillenniaandiscritical to themanagementofavarietyof specificenvironments,yet it remains largely ignoredbygovernment,industryandbyenvironmentalscientistsandprojectmanagers.Thisistheoutcomeofineffective legislationandpoliciesthathavebeen implementedwithoutconsiderationofthevalueof traditional knowledge and how it can be respectfully acquired and utilised to improveenvironmentalprotectionintheNorthernTerritory.

Currently, recognition of traditional knowledge in the environmental planning process in theNorthernTerritoryisnotenshrinedinlaw.Thereareverylimitedexampleswherethisknowledgeisbeingusedtoitsfulleffect. Asaconsequenceofthelackofaformalframeworkthatdefineshow

10Smith,HD(2016):LifeofMinePlanningandCulturalSustainabilityonAboriginalLand,FirstInternationalCongressonPlanningforClosureofMiningOperations,Santiago,Chile.

28

traditionalknowledgeshouldbeused, inmostcases it is simplyeitherbeing ignoredorotherwisecatalogued,categorisedandstored indatabasesbutnotbeingutilised inameaningful, rationalorscientificwayintheNorthernTerritory.

Incorporationoftraditionalknowledgeintolegislationandthrougheverystageoftheenvironmentalplanning,assessmentandapprovalsprocesswouldaddressthis.

Recommendation 18: Regulations should specifically require that meaningful and culturallyappropriatecommunityengagementoccurswithtraditionalAboriginalownersandotherIndigenousstakeholderspriortothedevelopmentofenvironmentplansthatarerequiredundertheRegulations.

Recommendation 19: Regulations should specifically require the incorporation of AboriginaltraditionalknowledgeinenvironmentplansdevelopedundertheRegulations.The Regulations also “operationalise the “as low as reasonably practicable” test (ALARP) in thedecision-makingprocess”.TheRegulationsprovidethattheMinisterwillapproveanenvironmentalplan if satisfied that certainapproval criteriahavebeenmet.Reference ismade toa reductionof“environmental impacts and risks associated with the activity to levels that are ALARP andacceptable”.

ThetermsALARPandacceptablearenotcurrentlydefinedinlegislation.Thereisanargumentthatan acceptable level of risk will vary depending on type of activity being undertaken and theenvironment inwhichsuchactivitywilloccur.TheNLCacknowledges that the typeofactivityandenvironmentcanaffectwhat isacceptableorALARP.However it is important toascertainhowanactivitymayorwillaffecttheenvironmentinwhichit isproposedtooccur,andtomakedecisionsbased on reliable data. Baseline environmental data should be ascertained and included inenvironmentplans,togetherwithdatareflectingtheexpectedimpacts(whichdatashouldbebasedonsufficientbaselineinformationandaccuratescientificmodelling)fromtheproposedactivitybothwithandwithoutrecommendedmitigationmeasuresinplace.Thereneedstobeclarityaroundthedefinitionof‘acceptable’and‘ALARP’andthiscanbeachievedbydefiningthetermsinlegislation.The environment plan should highlight residual impacts by specifying any changes anticipated tooccurinrelationtoknownbaselineenvironmentalmeasureswithproposedmitigationstrategiesinplaceandspecificallydetailwhethertheserisksareacceptable(inaccordancewiththedefinition).TheenvironmentplanshouldalsodetailhowriskswillbeavoidedormanagedandreducedbearinginmindtheprinciplesofALARPandacceptability.

Recommendation20:Theterms‘acceptable’and‘ALARP’shouldbedefinedinlegislation.

29

Recommendation21:Baselinedatashouldbeobtainedfromtheenvironmentinwhichtheproposedactivity is to occur and be included in the environment plan together with the models andassumptionsusedtoforecastanychangesthatwilloccurtotheexistingenvironment.

Recommendation22:Thedata included intheenvironmentplanshouldbeusedtoassesswhethertheproposedactivitypresentsacceptable/unacceptableriskanddetailhowriskswillbeavoidedormanagedandreducedhavingregardtotheprinciplesofALARPandacceptability.

14.4.6.3Onusofproof

TheNLCsupportsthepropositionthatreversaloftheonusofproofforenvironmentalharmshouldbe incorporated into legislation such that industry proponents bear the onus of proof inmattersrelating to environmental and/or compliance and other disputes in the context of the onshorepetroleum industry. Industry proponents have access to relevant data and information which isoftenrequiredtoproveordisprovetheenvironmentalimpactsofaproject.Theaboveismagnifiedgiven the relatively recent introduction of onshore unconventional petroleum activities in theNorthern Territory, and the unfamiliarity that traditional Aboriginal owners and other Indigenousstakeholdershavewiththeimpacts(bothdetrimentalandbeneficial)associatedwiththeindustry’sactivities; combined with the fact that many industry proponents are well-versed in onshoreunconventionalpetroleumactivitiesandassociatedimpacts.

Further, industry isbetterresourced(both intermsof fundingandstaff) thanmanyorganisations,includingtheNLC,toundertaketheprimaryleadandcarriageofmattersinvolvingissuesoflegalityandcompliance.

Recommendation23: Theonusof proof for environmental harm shouldbe reversed such that theonusrestsonindustryproponents,andthisshouldbeenshrinedinlegislation.

30

APPENDIX1:References

Fishchhoff, B,Watson, SR& Hope, C 1984 , Defining Risk. Policy Sciences Vol. 17, page 123-139.ElsevierSciencePublishers,Netherlands.

Bachu, S. 2017. Analysis of gas leakage occurrence along wells in Alberta, Canada, from a GHGperspective Gasmigration outsidewell casing. International Journal of GreenhouseGas ControlVolume61,June2017,Pages146-154(accessedonline5September2017).

InactiveWell Compliance Program (IWCP), Year Two Final Report In addition to Bulletin 2014-19,AlbertaEnergyRegulator(AER).

Jackson, R.B. 2014. The integrity of oil and gas wells. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America, Published online 2014 (accessed online 14 September2017).

Altman, J and Kerins, S 2015 People on Country; Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures, TheFederationPress.

DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet~2013,“ClosingtheGapFactsheet”(accessedSept2017fromsource:http://iaha.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/000214_cultureclosinggap.pdf).

International Finance Corporation World Bank Group 2012. IFC Performance Standards onEnvironmentalandSocialSustainability,EffectiveJanuary1(2012).

Esteves,AM,et al. 2012. Social ImpactAssessment; the stateof theart ImpactsAssessment andProjectAppraisalVol.30,No.1,34 42.

Owen,JR,andKemp,D,2014.‘Freepriorandinformedconsent’,socialcomplexityandtheminingindustry: establishing a knowledge base. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, SustainableMineralsInstitute,TheUniversityofQueensland.ResourcesPolicy41,91 100.

Partal,AandDunphy 2016,Cultural impactassessment;a systematic literature reviewof currentmethodsandpracticearoundtheworld.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisalVolume34,Issue1.

How,R.A.,andDell,J.(2000).GroundvertebratefaunaofPerth’svegetationremnants:impactsof170yearsofurbanisation.PacificConservationBiology6,198 217.

Jackson, S. D., and Griffin, C. R. (2000). A strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife. In‘Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma.ProceedingsoftheSymposium.7thAnnualMeetingoftheWildlifeSociety,Nashville,TX’(EdsT.A.MessmerandB.West.)pp.143 159.

Stenhouse,R.N.(2004).FragmentationandinternaldisturbanceofnativevegetationreservesinthePerthmetropolitanarea,WesternAustralia.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning68,389 401.

Dique,D.S.,etal.(2003).Koalamortalityonroadsinsouth-eastQueensland:thekoalaspeedzonetrial.WildlifeResearch30,419 426.doi:10.1071/WR02029.

Ramp, D.,Caldwell, J., Edwards, K. A., Warton, D., and Croft, D. B.. (2005). Modelling of wildlifefatality hotspots along the Snowy Mountain Highway in New South Wales, Australia. BiologicalConservation126,474 490.doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.001.

Klöcker,U.,Croft,D.B.,andRamp,D. (2006).Frequencyandcausesofkangaroo vehiclecollisionsonanAustralianoutbackhighway.WildlifeResearch33,5 15.doi:10.1071/WR04066.

31

Bond,A.R.,andJones,D.N.(2008).Temporaltrendsinuseoffaunafriendlyunderpassesandoverpasses.WildlifeResearch35,103 112.doi:10.1071/WR07027.

Jones,M.E.(2000).Roadupgrade,roadmortalityandremedialmeasures:impactsonapopulationofeasternquollsandTasmaniandevils.WildlifeResearch27,289 296.doi:10.1071/WR98069.

Fensham,R.&Fairfax,R.WetlandsEcologyandManagement(2003)11:343.(source:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WETL.0000005532.95598.e4).

Kendy,E.,Gérard-Marchant,P.,ToddWalter,M.,Zhang,Y.,Liu,C.andSteenhuis,T.S.(2003),Asoil-water-balanceapproachtoquantifygroundwaterrechargefromirrigatedcroplandintheNorthChinaPlain.Hydrol.Process.,17:2011 2031.doi:10.1002/hyp.1240

Kriebel,D.,Tickner,J.,Epstein,P.,Lemons,J.,Levins,R.,Loechler,E.L.,Quinn,M.,Rudel,R.,Schettler,T.,andStoto.M.2001.Theprecautionaryprincipleinenvironmentalscience.EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives.2001Sep;109(9):871 876.

MacKay.H.2006.Protectionandmanagementofgroundwater-dependentecosystems:emergingchallengesandpotentialapproachesforpolicyandmanagement.AustralianJournalofBotany54(2)231-237(source https://doi.org/10.1071/BT05047).