The Albanese government agreed to weaken conditions it had proposed to protect world heritage-listed Indigenous rock art from Woodside’s giant North West Shelf gas development after the fossil fuel company argued it could be forced to shut the plant.
The change is explained in a “statement of reasons” document setting out why the environment minister, Murray Watt, approved an application to extend the operating life of one of the world’s biggest and most polluting gas export developments until 2070.
The statement shows Watt accepted environment department advice that “multiple lines of scientific and other evidence” suggested industrial emissions were having a “significant adverse impact” on rocks in Murujuga, a cultural landscape in northern Western Australia that is home to more than 1m pieces of rock art, known as petroglyphs.
The minister also accepted advice that future pollution from the North West Shelf liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facility could cause “degradation, damage, notable alteration, modification, obscuring or diminishing” of the area’s natural heritage.
He said while there was evidence a defunct gas power plant had damaged rock art – a point emphasised by the WA government in a contentious summary of a rock art monitoring report – there was also evidence that the North West Shelf project would “likely have also been a significant or equivalent contributor to historical impacts”.
Watt provisionally ruled in May that Woodside could continue operating the LNG plant beyond 2030 only if it cut acidic pollution – particularly nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide – so that there were no air emissions “above the detectable limit” that affect rock art.
But Woodside responded this was “not technically feasible”. It said the conditions were an “effective refusal” of the development that would lead to the “cessation of business as usual operations” at the end of 2030.
• Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter
After a protracted period of negotiation, the final conditions announced in September said acidic pollution from the facility and each production line would need to fall by 60% by 2030 and 90% by 2061.
Though reduced, these conditions were more exacting than those imposed by the WA government. Experts have said they could force the closure of the plant’s oldest and dirtiest LNG production lines, which started operating in the 1980s.
Watt’s statement of reasons said the final conditions were “stringent” and he believed the development would not have an “unacceptable impact” on the area’s heritage values.
He acknowledged his decision to require progressive, rather than immediate, cuts in acidic pollution meant there was a higher likelihood of rock art being affected “in the short-term”, but said he was satisfied any impact “would be small and therefore outweighed by the social or economic factors”.
Raelene Cooper, a Mardathoonera woman and traditional owner from the group Save Our Songlines, said Watt had conceded emissions from the North West Shelf had damaged the rock art, and that this damage would likely continue despite the Murujuga landscape having been inscribed on the world heritage list in July.
She said the minister’s statement supported claims by traditional custodians, scientists and whistleblowers that the WA government’s assessment and monitoring of the rock art was inadequate.
“This is an absolutely extraordinary document that admits every major point the government has been covering up and denying about the impacts of Woodside’s Burrup Hub on Murujuga’s sacred rock art,” she said. “With this statement of reasons, the minister is effectively blowing the whistle on his own government.”
Watt said a company proposing a development was always consulted about conditions when a decision was made under federal environmental law. “That’s what happened here,” he said. “What we’ve done over that consultation period is to come up with much more specific conditions than what were included in the proposed decision.”
He said the consultation with Woodside had ensured the conditions were “technically feasible, can actually be implemented and that they protect the rock art”.
“The Albanese government is committed to protecting the environment and First Nations cultural heritage, as well as protecting jobs. It doesn’t have to be one or the other and I believe this decision has got that balance right,” he said.
The North West Shelf life extension has been described as a “carbon bomb” that could lead to billions of tonnes of CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere, mostly after the gas is shipped and burned overseas. Under national environment law, Watt was required to consider only the local impact and not the development’s contribution to climate change.
Benjamin Smith, a professor of archaeology and world rock art expert at the University of Western Australia, said the release of the statement meant “at last, we have reached the truth”.
“It is confirmed that the industrial emissions at Murujuga have damaged the rock art, they continue to damage the rock art, and they will cause further damage for the full 45 years of the North West Shelf project,” he said. “But the almighty dollar has proved too important in the eyes of the government.”
WA Greens climate spokesperson, Sophie McNeill, highlighted that Watt’s statement found that conditions imposed on Woodside by the WA Labor government were “not sufficient to prevent harm” to rock art. But she said the federal government had “still caved to gas industry pressure” by approving the 40-year extension.
A WA government spokesperson said it continued “to support decisions based on the best available science”.
A Woodside spokesperson said the company took its responsibility to manage cultural heritage seriously and that research on the impact of emissions on rock art had “not been conclusive”. They said the company and its partners in the North West Shelf recognised the need for further research and and supported the WA rock art monitoring program.
