International Law Expert Warns Against Abandoning Bass Strait Infrastructure

An international law specialist has raised concerns that ExxonMobil’s plans to abandon infrastructure in the Bass Strait could violate Australia’s obligations under international law. This warning comes as ExxonMobil prepares to decommission its aging Gippsland offshore oil and gas project, located approximately 77 kilometers off Victoria’s coast. The implications of this move are significant, both legally and environmentally.

ExxonMobil’s Proposal to Abandon Infrastructure

In a recent update, ExxonMobil revealed its intention to leave steel structures in situ on the seabed at depths greater than 55 meters as part of its decommissioning strategy for its 50-year-old Gippsland basin assets. The company stated that while the lower sections of the steel structures will remain on the seabed, the removal of these items will be addressed in a future decommissioning campaign, contingent upon regulatory acceptance of alternative proposals. ExxonMobil is expected to submit its decommissioning plan to regulators by early 2025.

“This is a novel issue that hasn’t arisen legally in Australia before,” said Professor Rothwell, an expert in international law, who was consulted by The Wilderness Society regarding the legality of these plans. He emphasized that Australia, as a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNclos), is mandated to remove all structures from its maritime boundaries when they are no longer in use.

Legal Obligations and Government Position

Rothwell further noted that the Australian government is acutely aware of its obligations under international law, recently frequently referencing the law of the sea convention in various forums. "We’re in this interesting position at the moment where the prime minister, the defense minister, and the foreign minister constantly reference the law of the sea convention," Rothwell stated, alluding to Australia’s strategic maritime interests, particularly in areas like the South China Sea.

The environmental ramifications of abandoning infrastructure also weigh heavily. Abandonment would not just flout international obligations; it could potentially lead to environmental degradation. The situation poses a critical question: Will the Australian government uphold its legal commitments in the context of offshore oil and gas operations?

Concerns from Environmental Advocates

Environmental advocates are taking notice of the situation. Fern Cadman, a campaigner with The Wilderness Society, expressed alarm at ExxonMobil’s plans. “Rothwell’s advice demonstrates a clear requirement under international law for the government and its offshore regulator to insist on full removal,” Cadman asserted. She urged Nopsema, the offshore safety regulator, to enforce compliance to avoid a scenario where ExxonMobil might lack the financial capacity for cleanup, leaving taxpayers to shoulder potential costs.

Potential Environmental Impacts

As projects age, the potential for environmental impacts from abandoned infrastructure escalates. The Centre of Decommissioning Australia estimates that over the next 30 years, approximately 5.7 million tonnes of material—equivalent to 110 Sydney Harbour Bridges—will need to be removed from offshore oil and gas installations across Australia. This highlights the pressing need for responsible decommissioning strategies.

ExxonMobil’s Decommissioning Efforts

ExxonMobil, through its subsidiary Esso Australia, is responsible for operating the Gippsland basin assets in conjunction with its joint venture partners, Woodside Energy and Mitsui E&P Australia. An ExxonMobil spokesperson emphasized the company’s commitment to progressive decommissioning, outlining efforts to plug and abandon over 120 wells and contract a vessel to commence removal of topsides and upper jacket sections down to 55 meters by 2027-28.

“Our focus is on evaluating a range of decommissioning options, including full removal, partial removal, or leaving structures in situ while considering environmental impacts, technical challenges, and safety factors,” the spokesperson added.

Navigating a Complex Landscape

As the debate unfolds, the complexities of offshore decommissioning and international law will likely draw heightened scrutiny. The potential for setting legal precedents in Australia could resonate throughout the industry, posing challenges not just for ExxonMobil but for other operators as well.

The uncertainty surrounding regulatory approval under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act adds another layer of complexity. If ExxonMobil gains permission to abandon its infrastructure, it may invite similar proposals from other operators, impacting future offshore decommissioning standards.

The Road Ahead

Stakeholders across the spectrum—from government officials and multinational corporations to environmental advocates and local communities—will be closely watching as ExxonMobil initiates its decommissioning plans. The need for transparency and adherence to international obligations cannot be overstated; the outcome of this situation could have far-reaching implications for both the maritime environment and regulations governing the offshore oil and gas sector in Australia.

As the dialogue continues, we invite readers to share their thoughts and engage in discussions regarding offshore infrastructure and environmental accountability. What do you think should happen next in the decommissioning debate in Bass Strait?

For further reading on international maritime law and its implications for Australia’s offshore practices, consider reviewing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNclos) here.

For more on ExxonMobil’s plans and the environmental ramifications, check out our related articles on the decommissioning process and international agreements.

For any inquiries or insights, feel free to leave your comments below.