Add Category
Barristers appealing the approval of Santos's multi-billion dollar Narrabri Gas Project have argued New South Wales's Independent Planning Commission (IPC) was "legally irresponsible" when it approved the controversial development.
Key points:
- The Land and Environment Court is hearing an appeal against the Narrabri Gas Project's approval
- A barrister tells the court the IPC did not adequately consider the effect of greenhouse gas emissions
- Santos's barrister argues the IPC was reasonable in its decision
A three-day hearing in the Land and Environment Court is examining the appeal, which was filed late last year by the Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord (MGPA).
The project was approved by state and federal planning authorities and is eventually expected to meet up to half the demand for gas in New South Wales.
However, farmers and environmentalists have long opposed the development, and have argued it could effect the security of groundwater supplies for farmers in the surrounding region.
Emissions a hot topic
A barrister for the MGPA, Sarah Pritchard SC, argued the IPC did not adequately consider the impact of the project's greenhouse gas emissions, because it considered them in comparison to coal-fired power, rather than in isolation.
She argued the commission instead considered "hypothetical reductions" that could occur if the project's gas displaced the use of coal-fired power.
Supplied: Eastern Star Gas
)Ms Pritchard said it was also "legally irresponsible" of the IPC not to restrict the project's Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, which relate to the use of the gas after it is extracted.
However, Santos's barrister, Richard Lancaster SC, told the court the IPC did consider such a condition, and made a reasonable judgment in deciding not to impose it.
He argued that "downstream" emissions from the use of the gas were not within Santos's control because they would be generated by "thousands, if not millions, of end users".
Pipeline questions
The court was also told conflicting arguments about whether the IPC should have considered the potential impact of a gas pipeline that could run through rural properties.
In response, Mr Lancaster argued the early stages of work on the project could occur without a pipeline.
"A pipeline was not part of the application, there was no pipeline route to assess," he said.
The hearing before the Chief Judge of the Court, Justice Brian Preston SC, continues and a decision is expected later this year.