- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Australia
- /
- The Wilderness Society v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & ANOR
The Wilderness Society v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & ANOR
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Filed
Geography
Court/admin entity
Australia → Federal Court of Australia
Case category
Suits against governments → Environmental assessment and permitting → Other projects
Principal law
Australia → Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth)
At issue
Whether the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority erred, under Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth), in granting Santos's Environment Plan te preserve their Reindeer wellhead platform.
Documents
There are no documents to display yet. Check back later.
Summary
The Wilderness Society, a public company incorporated in Tasmania, filed a suit against the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) on August 1, 2025, in the Federal Court of Australia. The Wilderness Society, represented by Equity Generation lawyers, challenges NOPSEMA's decision to approve an Environment Plan of Santos, an oil and gas company.
The Environmental Plan granted allows Santos to preserve their Reindeer wellhead platform for future phases, after Santos ceases producing from the area this year. The Wilderness Society argues that granting such a plan without requiring companies to maintain adequate finance to cover the clean-up costs of the site will allow companies to run from their clean-up obligations. More specifically, under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) § 571(2), the NOPSEMA is obligated to approve an Environment Plan only when the company can maintain sufficient financial assurance to meet certain costs, expense, and liabilities. The Wilderness Society says the NOPSEMA interpreted this section too narrowly, failing to consider the cost related to decommission of infrastructure and damage to the surrounding environment.
The case is planned to be heard on April 7, 2026.