Largely irrelevant imo. It’s not a binary environment where a fringe group can dictate a state’s energy security. The best they can do is utilise legal systems to filibuster i.e. a stalling tactic, which eventually gets thrown out as can be seen by recent win outcomes for Woodside and Santos. The activist cases were essentially laughed out of court with costs awarded.
It’s better to take a top down view and look at the macro environment drivers; Brent crude is at US$91, Russia has had 15% of their crude refining capacity knocked out in last four months, the middle east is deteriorating with an Iran-Israel war potentially starting as early as next week. So you ask the question, are first world energy intensive countries going to act laissez-fare in the face of an energy security crisis? No, they are not.
In the face of all these so called climate goals, drilling by tier one firms has not stopped at all, in fact M&A has increased, even in Australia with Inpex (Japan) and Total (France) buying the entire Cash-Maple assets from PTTEP (which surrounds our Gem prospect btw). Woodside Pluto Stage Two is going ahead also. North Sea drilling has not slowed and the actual government policies show they want MORE production.
Because of the new “axis powers”, global energy interdependence is threatened, which means finding and testing safe assets will continue for a long time yet. We aren’t going to wake up tomorrow and magically all be friends again.
