Indigenous traditional owners from the Northern Territory's remote Tiwi Islands have launched Federal Court action in a bid to stop the development of a multi-billion-dollar gas project off the coast of Darwin.
Santos last year signed off on the $4.7 billion Barossa offshore development, which includes a pipeline from a gas field in the Timor Sea to an existing LNG facility on Darwin Harbour.
However, traditional owners claim the gas company and the federal government failed to ensure they were properly consulted about the project's potential risks to their marine environment, dreaming story tracks and animals.
It is the second court action that Tiwi traditional owners have attempted to take against the development, after they failed last month to get a South Korean court to rule loans for the development should be halted.
We answer some of your questions about what's happening.
What is the Barossa project?
Labelled as one of the biggest projects in the Australian oil and gas sector for almost a decade, the development will draw gas from an offshore field lying about 300 kilometres north of Darwin, in Commonwealth waters.
Santos predicts it will help extend the life of the Darwin LNG processing plant by 20 years.
Gas production is expected to begin in 2025, with the project to create an estimated 600 jobs during construction as well as 350 ongoing jobs in Darwin over the next two decades.
Santos has said it plans to minimise climate changing emissions from the project by using carbon capture and storage.
What are the traditional owners' concerns?
Senior Munupi Tiwi traditional owner and law man Dennis Murphy Tipakalippa's land and sea country is at the northern beaches on Melville Island.
He is worried about well drilling, and that any possible spill of condensate oil could damage flatback and olive ridley turtle nesting areas and habitat there.
"I am worried about the turtles, we do have a nesting ground at Imalu Point, I am worried we might not see those clutches of eggs and those little turtles anymore," he said.
Mr Tipakalippa is also worried that the planned 260 kilometre pipeline is to be built through the Ocean Shoals Marine Park and within six kilometres of his Putjamirra homeland on Melville's Northern Beaches area.
Munupi traditional owner Connie Puruntatameri, who lives on Melville's Northern Beaches area said that also worries her.
"All our life we've been eating bush tucker, and we don't want any drilling and pipelines at the ocean otherwise all our animals will go away," she said.
Are their concerns justified?
In its application to have its Environment Plan for the gas field approved by the Federal Government, Santos outlined both planned and unplanned impacts including noise, ship movements, and spills of condensate oil to endangered turtles, whales and sharks as a risk to wildlife.
It modelled that a spill of condensate oil, which is to be extracted along with gas, could pollute Tiwi Islands traditional waters, and four federal government marine parks, including Ashmore Reef, as well as the Ashmore Reef Ramsar site.
The company found endangered and threatened animals that could be affected by construction, condensate ship movements, or an unplanned spill, including the spear tooth shark, whale shark, blue whale, loggerhead turtle and leatherback turtle.
It also recorded that Seagull Island north of Melville has "internationally significant" nesting sites for 60,000 crested terns.
Santos found that a number of Australian fisheries including the Northern Prawn Fishery, and Indonesian and East Timorese fishing waters could be affected by a condensate oil spill.
In its Environment Plan, Santos said the risk of a spill was low to medium and it outlined a series of measures to prevent and deal with that eventuality, including having ships ready to try to clean a spill up, and building its wells to high technical and integrity standards.
The Federal Government's offshore gas regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, approved the Environment Plan last month.
Santos already has an operational gas field north-west of the Tiwi Islands and the Kimberley, Bayu Undan, from which it has piped gas to its Darwin LNG plant through a pipeline, without any major environmental incidents, since 2006.
What is the basis of traditional owners' case?
Consultation with stakeholders who may be affected by offshore gas projects is a legal requirement for federal approval.
Dennis Murphy Tipaklippa said he and his family were not consulted about the risks from the Barossa project and pipeline.
Mr Tipaklippa has lodged the Federal Court case against both Santos and the federal government, alleging both failed to ensure proper consultation took place.
He is being backed by the Environmental Defenders Office green group special counsel Alina Leikin.
"There is an obligation on Santos to identify people who might be affected by the proposed activity, and then it has to provide them with enough information to meaningfully engage in that consultation process," she said.
"Then it has to take into account what's been said and factor that in to the way it takes the proposal forward.
"If our client is successful in this case we would expect that Santos would have to start this (the consultation) process again."
So, did Santos consult with traditional owners?
The company did not respond to the ABC's request for comment this week.
However, in its Environment Plan, Santos recorded that it had emailed and phoned the Tiwi Land Council, which represents traditional owners, in June and July last year to provide information about the project risks.
"Tiwi Land Council was contacted by email on 11 June 2021 to offer a briefing on the Barossa Project," Santos said.
"[It] was provided the Barossa Development Drilling and Completions Stakeholder Consultation package via email on 11 June 2021 inviting comment.
In its Environment Plan for the pipeline, which was approved in March 2020, Santos's then project partner ConocoPhillips recorded that it consulted the Tiwi Land Council in 2018 and was able to satisfy its concerns about nesting turtles.
"A meeting with the Tiwi Land Council was held to discuss the gas export pipeline installation EP discussed the TLC's issues and concerns related to impacts and risks to the seabed and nearby habitat and turtle activity due to pipeline installation," it said.
"ConocoPhillips responded in writing to all the concerns raised and the TLC advised it was satisfied with the responses."
What does the Tiwi Land Council say?
The Tiwi Land Council's long standing chairman Gibson Farmer Illortaminni told the ABC that ConocoPhillips and Santos had told the council about the Barossa project.
But he said he told Santos it must directly consult with the correct traditional owners of areas that could be affected.
"We told Santos when we had that meeting, me as chair, I listen to my people," he said.
"We don't make a decision without the consent of the traditional owners.
"I said: you need to go and talk to the right traditional owners; I told they have to consult with the people."
How does this new case sit alongside others in Australia?
This case is one of a series in Australia in which Indigenous traditional owners and environment groups have used the courts to try to tackle actual or threatened damage to the environment and cultural heritage.
Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University, Jon Altman, gave evidence to the federal parliamentary inquiry into the Juukan Gorge destruction.
"We are seeing a paradigm shift of Indigenous land owners and people with native title rights asserting their rights to control what development happens on their lands and seas," he said.
"One of the weaknesses that Indigenous groups have had in the past is that they've been under-resourced ... so alliances with green groups are assisting them with resourcing."
Professor Altman said joint efforts are increasingly cutting through politically.
"We're seeing parliamentary inquiries which are resulting in attention on these issues, clearly after the Juukan Gorge regulatory debacle and the damning report by Graeme Samuel on the ineffectiveness of the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation] Act in protecting Indigenous environment and heritage values," he said.
"It's a time when the incoming government is highlighting the need for an Indigenous voice, and there's a senate inquiry into the applicability of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People underway."
