AUD 22.29 Bil Santos’ recent oil spill in Western Australia copped a meager AUD 10,000 fine and AUD 9,700 in court costs.
So how did the courts presiding over these environmental obligations case come to the $ verdict amount? Particularly when considering the 2024 verdict for Santos to pay AUD2.75 Mil in penalties for breaching record-keeping obligations under the National Gas Rules. AND, in November 2024, The Federal Court of Australia recently ordered the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) to pay AUD 9 Mil in legal costs to Santos after the court dismissed a challenge by Tiwi Islanders to block the construction of a 262-kilometer gas pipeline in the Timor Sea.
Environmental Impact of approximately 25,000 litres of oil condensate- lighter and more volatile than crude oil primarily composed of natural gas liquids (NGLs) such as ethane, propane, butane, and pentane – were released into the Indian Ocean off the Pilbara coast, Western Australia.
Whistleblower testimony claimed there were reports of dead dolphins and other marine life and sea snakes found within 200 meters of the oil slick shortly after the spill.
While Santos reported that 95% of the oil evaporated within 24 hours, and the remainder evaporated over the following days, and claimed negligible environmental impact – conservationists and environmental groups have criticized Santos for underestimating the damage and alleged cover-up attempts.
The WA Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS) brought charges against Santos, highlighting the company’s failure to properly investigate and maintain the pipeline.
The Karratha Magistrates Court found Santos breached the 1982 Act WA Petroleum (Submerged Lands), which mandates licensees to prevent the waste or escape of petroleum; (WHY was this Act not included? The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999 regulating activities that may impact marine ecosystems, including oil spill responses); Negligence in failing to properly investigate the pipeline for potential damage, despite the pipeline nearing the end of its five-year lifespan; Santos pleaded guilty to the charges, acknowledging their failure to ensure the pipeline’s safety; Environmental Impact, although there were allegations of environmental damage, including dolphin deaths, the court noted that the spill was relatively limited and most of the condensate evaporated within 24 hours; In the penalty Justification, Magistrate Robert Young emphasized that the fine should reflect the seriousness of the allegations (A$10,000?) but also acknowledged the steps Santos had taken to address the infringement and prevent future incidents.
AS A REMINDER – LET NOT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF
Since the first major commercial oil spill of 1967 in Torrey Canyon England, with other notable spills in the Unites States, China and India Mumbai-Uran pipeline spill, and Italy Fiume Santo power station. These environmental disasters propelled the formation of International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC) in 1990. Reminiscent of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster with billions in fines f
The Exxon Valdez oil spill 1989, in Prince William Sound, Alaska, released 41.6 Mil liters of crude oil, marking one of the worst environmental disasters in history. Caused by a drunk captain and an inexperienced crew, the spill devastated 2,092 kilometers of coastline, killing hundreds of thousands of marine animals and birds. Exxon incurred US$2 Bil in cleanup costs and US$1.8 Bil for restoration and damages. Efforts involved federal responders, Exxon employees, and over 11,000 Alaskan residents, employing skimming, dispersants, hot water beach cleaning, and animal rescue. Decades later, residual oil pockets remain, reflecting the disaster’s enduring impact.
Further reading:
- The Australia Montara oil spill in 2009 releasing 5,588,235 liters into the Timor Sea. Meagre fines won’t stop oil spills, but
- cooperation could. The Montara oil spill in 2009, Published: September 5, 2012 The conversation.
