The Wilderness Society v NOPSEMA and Santos
Federal Court of Australia | NSD1342/2025
On 1 August 2025, The Wilderness Society filed a judicial review application in the Federal Court of Australia, challenging a decision of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to accept an Environment Plan submitted by Santos WA Northwest Pty Ltd (Santos).
The Wilderness Society is an independent, community-based, not-for-profit environmental advocacy organisation with a long-standing interest in the conservation of Australia’s coastlines and oceans.
Background to the claim
Under Australian law, a company must submit an Environment Plan before undertaking offshore petroleum activities, like oil and gas production and decommissioning. NOPSEMA must assess and approve an Environment Plan before the company carries out the activities in the plan.
The Environment Plan relevant to this case relates to Santos’ Reindeer gas field situated off the north west coast of Western Australia.
On 24 April 2025, Santos submitted to NOPSEMA a revised Environment Plan for the Reindeer field. The Reindeer field is approaching the end of its economically viable production life and Santos expects it to cease production in mid-2025. Accordingly, the Environment Plan outlines how Santos intends to manage the Reindeer field site during the post-production phase, including the preservation of infrastructure until a decision is made about decommissioning or re-purposing.
Decommissioning involves the removal of infrastructure from the offshore area that was previously used to support oil and gas operations. The Australian government estimates that oil and gas companies will spend $60B on decommissioning offshore infrastructure in the next 30-50 years.
On 8 May 2025, NOPSEMA accepted Santos’ Environment Plan. In NOPSEMA’s Statement of Reasons for accepting the Environment Plan, NOPSEMA indicated that it was reasonably satisfied that Santos was compliant with section 571(2) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth). That section requires titleholders to maintain adequate financial assurance to meet certain costs, expenses and liabilities.
What the claim alleges
The Wilderness Society argues that:
- NOPSEMA’s assessment of whether Santos was compliant with section 571(2) did not include an assessment of whether Santos had maintained adequate financial assurance to cover decommissioning costs;
- NOPSEMA took this approach because it misconstrued section 571(2) by not considering the costs, expenses and liabilities relating to decommissioning activities;
- As a result, the decision to accept the Environment Plan was legally flawed.
The scope of section 571(2) has never been considered by a Court. The Wilderness Society will argue that s 571(2) requires Santos to maintain financial assurance to cover the costs of decommissioning its offshore infrastructure.
This case will set a precedent, clarifying whether oil and gas companies must demonstrate that they have the means to pay for the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure.
Remedy sought
The Wilderness Society is asking the Court to quash NOPSEMA’s decision to accept the Environment Plan.
The Wilderness Society is also asking the Court to stop NOPSEMA and Santos from acting on this decision to accept the Environmental Plan.
First case management hearing
On 23 September 2025, the first case management hearing was held.
The Wilderness Society successfully sought the production of most documents before NOPSEMA when it approved the Environment Plan. The Court did not accept Santos’ request for the Wilderness Society to file a statement of claim.
The Court made orders listing the matter for final hearing on 7 and 8 April 2026 and otherwise timetabling the filing of submissions and other steps to prepare for the hearing. The orders can be viewed here.
The Wilderness Society is represented by Equity Generation Lawyers.
