“NOPSEMA was well aware of this claim [from Woodside],” Young told the court.

“If NOPSEMA was now going to be changing its position and proceeding on the basis that these emissions were minimal or negligible, it would have said so.”

Young asked, if NOPSEMA was going to proceed on that basis, why there were “several paragraphs over several pages” dedicated to things that assumed the emissions were not negligible.

He said Doctors for the Environment Australia would argue greenhouse gas emissions were an impact, not a potential impact; and as such, they had to be evaluated against environmental performance outcomes and control measures.

He said they would be arguing against Woodside’s submissions, which effectively said environmental performance outcomes did not need to be reflected in environmental performance.

“They can be concerned with something else … about the performance of the measure rather than about the performance of the environment … neither [outcome] tells you anything about the performance of a measure … it is nothing more than a meaningless corporate puffery,” he said.

The doctors’ group is also arguing Woodside never defined the acceptable level for third-party global greenhouse gas emissions.

“It says it never had to; we say it did,” Young told the court.

It also argued control measures “actually have to exist” to be something that can be used to manage environmental impact.

Woodside’s plan states that Scarborough’s gas may displace more carbon-intensive fuels and have a role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, but acknowledges this is uncertain.

Its proposed control measures include unspecified “additional management measures” if its own annual reviews reveal this displacement is not happening.

Proposed control measures also include Woodside supporting its export customers to reduce their emissions.

“This [environmental plan] is capable of doing nothing,” Young said in court.

“These measures … are capable of achieving nothing … in terms of environmental impacts.

“A control measure has to exist … You actually have to have something to put forward to NOPSEMA to evaluate.”

Loading

A Woodside spokesperson said the regulator’s assessment was in accordance with the regulations.

“Woodside will defend its position in these legal proceedings,” they said. “As they are before the court, Woodside will not comment.”

A NOPSEMA spokesperson also said it was inappropriate to comment.

The hearings will continue on Tuesday.

The doctors’ group on June 6 won a maximum costs order, limiting to $80,000 the amount NOPSEMA and Woodside could seek in legal costs if its case loses, effectively allowing their challenge to move forward.

It is not the only court challenge the Burrup Hub suite of projects faces, with the Friends of Australian Rock Art also fighting the West Australian government’s environmental approval regarding Woodside’s North West Shelf gas plant.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.