Trading on Good News, page-132

Surprised someone hasn't attempted an answer to this yet for a bonus point.
As a general rule in Australia, by Legislation, The Crown owns rights to all minerals, including hydrocarbons and even geothermal resources. This means that onshore and out to about 5 km offshore, the individual States own and manage these rights on behalf of their various populations. The only major exception for onshore minerals is uranium, which remains 'property of' The Commonwealth.
So yes, anyone extracting petroleum products, including Hancock and Strike, must pay royalties to the State of WA in this case for the ultimate benefit of the people of WA. Doesn't matter whether they plan to use the petroleum products themselves. In Strike's case, it doesn't even matter that they own the Freehold Title to the surface land where they start drilling from. Look on nearly any property title, including your own property, and you'll see this point about mineral rights noted on the Title. In a very few cases, if the land title was issued a very long time ago, the property owner may have some pre-existing rights to mineral resources and may be able to charge a fee for extraction, but this is quite unlikely to be the case here.
Offshore, The Crown, as in the Australian Government, is the owner of the resources, not the adjacent State. So the royalty beneficiaries in this case are, or at least were intended to be, the whole Australian population, though it is pretty common for States to have a side hustle going also when it comes to offshore resources. That's getting beyond relevance, except to note that offshore resources are under the nominal control of a different Government to those on land. That's important when it comes to approval and reporting processes.