Ed HUsic's commentary goes well beyond his resposibilities.
NOPTA is the responsible authority. NOPTA have provided a recommendation for approval, based upon the information they have recieved. That is the proper process.
To my knowledge, Ed does not have any expertise on these matters.
He may have concerns, however, when addressed accurately and a reasonable response has been provided, where to now for Ed?
We will have an election soon. THe economy is not looking good. This, together cost of living, housing crisis etc, which economists point to being exacebated by Labor policy.
Labor will not want this matter in the courts in a lead up to the election.
The bookies are predicitng a win for the LNP.
LNP will be releasing their energy policy in the lead up to the election. The policy will focus on increase in gas production and expolration.
Hideious projects such as offhore wind farm licences and zones will be cancelled. TEALS will not contest the cancelling of these zones. A simple cursory investigation will reveal to the public how destructive these planned wind farms are. Thousands upon thousands of metres of cable - criss-crossing the oceans. Exclusion zones for recreation and commercial fishing. I could go on.
PEP-11 has provided the regulatory authority all the information required and NOPTA have recommended approval. Ed is now the responsible minister, who is required to follow the expert regulators advice.
MY understanding is that NOPSEMA will become the responsible authority, with the oversight of drilling etc. ED may be putting the cart before the horse.
NOPTA gives the green light to drill. NOPSEMA gives the green light to drill once the practical and enviromental conditions have been met.
The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is the Australian Government offshore energy regulator responsible for the health and safety, well integrity and environmental management aspects of offshore oil and gas operations in Australian Commonwealth waters.
If Ed's concerns relate to these matters of health and safety, well integrity and environmental management aspects, then ED has jumped the process. NOPTA's role comes into play. It is at this stage that ED can raise his concerns. I would suggest that Ed is conflating the role of NOPTA and NOPSEMA. If this is the case, then ED's concerns are invalid as the concerns have been raised at the wrong stage of the approval process.
Once again, the obvious is that Labor would have rejected the PEP-11 application if reasonable grounds exist. It is self evidentory that reasonable reaons donot exist.
LNP's energy policy will reveal that exploration licences, such as PEP-11, be shown to be essential as future base load power essential to either Nuclear or re-newables. Fantasy projests such as offshore windfarms are just that.
Listen to what they say, but react to at they do.
Ed has said he has concerns, but has not denied the permit. ED can say whatever he wants, but he cant do what ever he wants as he is obligated to approve. That is why we have these processes.
Expand
(20min delay)