16 December 2019
Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Committee Secretary, Re: Senate Inquiry into the Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) and Save our Marine Life (SOML) appreciate the opportunity to make this submission to the Senate Inquiry on the ‘Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment’.
We are concerned that the impacts of seismic noise have been given insufficient attention in the assessment and approvals process for the environmental plans of the oil and gas sector. A growing body of research has indicated that seismic noise can affect a broad range of marine fauna from whales, dolphins and marine turtles to finfish, rock lobsters, scallops and squid. It is also possible that seismic noise could be implicated in the dramatic reductions in sea snake populations in the Ashmore Reef region.
Governments here and overseas have responded to community concerns about the impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise but their actions have largely been focussed on cetaceans. It is now time for the Australian Government to broaden and strengthen its approach to seismic noise to cover all marine fauna and to ensure that its impacts are prioritised in the assessment and approvals processes for oil and gas sector environment plans.
This submission provides information on each of the inquiry’s terms of reference and makes a number of recommendations to improve the scope of scientific research and the rigour of government oversight on the impacts of seismic noise.
Yours sincerely
Adele Pedder Marine Campaign Manager Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS
Christabel Mitchell National Campaign Manager Save Our Marine Life (SOML)
Australian Marine Conservation Society and Save our Marine Life
Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the
Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment
by the
Environment and Communications References Committee
2 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019
1. Executive summary Sounds are a natural occurrence in the world’s oceans and used by marine animals to communicate, navigate and search for prey. But the operations of the shipping, fishing and oil and gas sectors have dramatically changed the marine soundscape.
Anthropogenic noise in the world’s oceans is now recognised by international organisations and national and regional governments as having a growing and significant impact on marine life. Government responses on the issue have included policy statements, codes of conduct, regulations, mandated scientific protocols and mitigation measures, and the use of species protection laws. Lessening the impact on cetaceans has largely been the focus of these actions.
A major component of anthropogenic underwater noise is generated by airguns used in the seismic surveys of the oil and gas sector, the noiseprint of which continues to expand both here in Australia and overseas. The airguns emit low frequency, repetitive, intense and loud (250dB-260dB) blasts of pressurised air into the water column several times per minute. These continue over days, weeks or months, range across 100s to 1000s of square kilometres, and can be detected underwater almost 4000kms away. In comparison, the sound of a jackhammer is 100dB, a rocket launching 180dB – exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage human hearing.
A growing body of scientific research shows that seismic noise can impact marine life by causing temporary or permanent injury or death, changed behaviours and a reduced ability to socialise or find food. Threatened species such as whales, dolphins and turtles exhibit avoidance behaviour when subjected to seismic-level noise. Whale song patterns have been altered, the hearing of dolphins impaired – one study showed that such impairment could lead to dolphin strandings –and zooplankton, the very basis of ocean food chains, is at risk.
Marine species targeted by recreational and commercial fishers can also be impacted by seismic noise and with potential to have social and economic impacts. A number of studies have shown that finfish catch rates are lower during seismic surveys, while other research indicates changes in schooling behaviour, alarm responses, damage to hearing, altered population distribution, potential difficulty with feeding and increased vulnerability to predators. Physical and behavioural changes were also observed in lobsters and scallops, acoustic stress in oysters and harm to the sense of balance and position of squid.
The expanding scientific knowledge base has heightened the concern of the community and commercial and recreational fishers about the environmental, social and economic impacts of seismic noise. However, major gaps remain in the monitoring and understanding of the impacts of seismic noise on individual marine animals, the populations of those animals and the communities in which they live.
This submission makes 15 key recommendations, grouped into two broad headings - research and regulation.
RESEARCH - we recommend that the scientific research effort be expanded and broadened, including: Establish a national research program on the effects of anthropogenic noise in the marine environment 1. funded by the industry sectors responsible for creating the noise. Prioritise long-term and ecological community-level studies into the environmental effects of seismic 2. noise. Conduct baseline research into the critical habitats, aggregation sites and other sensitive areas of 3. marine animals that could be impacted by seismic noise. Assess the potential cultural, social and economic effects of seismic noise, including impacts on 4. Indigenous cultural values and sacred sites, and commercial and recreational fisheries. Conduct fishery-specific research: monitoring of catch rates and species composition in all areas where 5. seismic surveys overlap with commercially or recreationally important fishing grounds, as a requirement for approval, and funded by the industry sectors responsible for creating the noise. Analyse fishery recruitment in relation to seismic survey activity (predicted and actual) particularly for 6. species with planktonic life stages that have spatial overlap with areas considered prospective for seismic exploration. Support the development and promotion of noise-reducing technologies and alternatives to high-energy 7. seismic surveys.
3 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019
REGULATION - the regulatory oversight of seismic surveys is inadequate in terms of transparency, accountability, assessment rigour and the meaningful engagement of the community. This submission makes a number of recommendations about improving government oversight, including: 1. Give the federal Environment Minister oversight of the environmental impacts of offshore oil and gas sector activities. 2. Ensure the Department of Environment and Energy (soon to be Department of of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) assesses oil and gas sector environmental plans under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 3. List seismic noise as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. 4. Overhaul Policy Statement 2.1: ‘Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales’ under the 1999 (EPBC Act) by expanding it to cover all marine fauna. 5. Develop management systems that account for the cumulative and synergistic effects of noise and other cumulative human impacts on the marine environment. 6. Use temporal and spatial measures to ensure seismic surveys avoid seasonal patterns, critical habitats, aggregation sites and other sensitive areas of marine fauna. 7. Exclude seismic surveys from Marine Protected Areas/Marine Parks and Indigenous Protected Areas. Mandate energy companies to engage independent scientists to monitor and gather environmental and 8. fisheries data on prospective areas for seismic exploration for at least 12 months prior to the survey, and continue this monitoring during and after the survey.
This submission also includes an extensive list of references cataloguing research into the impacts of seismic noise and outlining community and recreational and commercial fisher concern about them.
4 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019
2. Turning up the volume in the world’s oceans The oceans are far from silent. They are full of sounds used by marine animals for ‘communication, navigation, orientation, feeding and the detection of predators’1, as well as for habitat selection and mating. Human activity also makes underwater sounds. But for marine life, these unwanted sounds are noise, and that noise is becoming louder and louder. Biologist Lindy Weilgart2 reports that anthropogenic underwater noise has increased two orders of magnitude (100 times) since the industrial age.
According to the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): ‘Over the last century, human activities such as shipping, recreational boating, and energy exploration have increased along our coasts, offshore, and deep ocean environments. Noise from these activities travel long distances underwater, leading to increases and changes in ocean noise levels’3.
This increasing anthropogenic underwater noise has consequences, as NOAA also reports: Rising noise levels can negatively impact ocean animals and ecosystems. These higher noise levels can reduce the ability of animals to communicate with potential mates, other group members, their offspring, or feeding partners. Noise can also reduce an ocean animal’s ability to hear environmental cues that are vital for survival, including those key to avoiding predators, finding food, and navigating to preferred habitats’4.
The 2012 report of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) for Parties to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) found that: ‘A variety of marine animals are known to be affected by anthropogenic noise. Negative impacts for at least 55 marine species (cetaceans, teleost fish, marine turtles and invertebrates) have been reported in scientific studies to date. A wide range of effects of increased levels of sound on marine fauna have been documented both in laboratory and field conditions. The effects can range from mild behavioural responses to complete avoidance of the affected area, masking of important acoustic cues, and in some cases serious physical injury or death. There are increasing concerns about the long-term and cumulative effects of noise on marine biodiversity’5.
International organisations have been responding to community concerns about anthropogenic underwater noise: ‘The issue of underwater noise and its effects on marine biodiversity has received increasing attention at the international level with recognition by a number of international and regional agencies, commissions and organisations including the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the United Nations (U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the European Parliament and European Union, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM)’6.
The International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, for instance, acknowledged in 2004 that: ‘repeated and persistent acoustic insults [over] a large area should be considered enough to cause population level 7 … impacts’ , while the 73rd Session of the UN’s General Assembly on 11 December 2018 adopted Resolution 73/124 ‘Oceans and the Law of the Sea’, which noted:
1 Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice Convention on Biological Diversity 2012, Scientific synthesis on the impacts of underwater noise on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats, Sixteenth meeting, Montreal, 30 April–5 May 2012, Item 6.2 on the agenda, p.2. 2 Weilgart L 2017, ‘Din of the deep: Noise in the ocean and its impacts on cetaceans’, in Butterworth A (ed.) 2017, Human induced change in the marine environment and its impacts on marine mammal welfare, Springer International Publishing, New York, pp.111-124. 3 NOAA website:
‘ the discussions at the nineteenth meeting of the Informal Consultative Process, from 18 to 22 June 2018, on … the theme of anthropogenic underwater noise, during which delegations, inter alia, expressed concern over the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise due to the growth of ocean-related human activities, which has resulted in increased sound in many parts of the ocean, as well as the potential impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise on different marine species and, in view of the continuing gaps in knowledge and lack of data, stressed the urgent need for further research and international cooperation to assess and address the potential effects of anthropogenic underwater noise in all ocean areas’8.
3. Marine seismic surveys and anthropogenic underwater noise Seismic surveys conducted by the offshore oil and gas sector are a major contributor to anthropogenic underwater noise. The surveys use single (2D) and multiple (3D) arrays of airguns and geophones towed behind vessels to gather data for the mapping of potential oil and gas resources beneath the seabed. The airguns emit 9 low frequency, repetitive, intense and loud (250dB-260dB) blasts of pressurised air into the water column several times per minute. These continue over days, weeks or months, range across 100s to 1000s of square kilometres, and can be detected underwater almost 4000kms away10. In comparison, the sound of a jackhammer 11 is 100dB, a power saw 110dB, a howitzer canon 175dB, and a rocket launching 180dB – exposure to noise 12 greater than 140 dB can permanently damage human hearing .
The 2018 Asset Energy seismic survey off the NSW east coast, for example, was blasting every 10 seconds for 24 13 2 hours each day over four days . A 3-D survey by Apache Energy covered 800km of the Carnarvon Basin off Western Australia, while the BP Exploration survey in the Great Australian Bight extended across more than 2 2 12,000km . On average, completed seismic surveys in Australia covered 15,848km for each quarter during 2014 14 and early 2015 .
At the end of her review of the effects of seismic noise, Lindy Weilgart drew the following conclusion: 2 ‘It is clear that a human-caused modification that extends across 300,000 km or distances of 4,000 km from the noise source 80-95% days of the month, year-round, is an ecosystem-wide impact. That seismic airguns are the second highest contributor of human-caused underwater noise in total energy output per year, following only nuclear and other explosions, should underline this point. At least 37 marine species have been shown to be affected by seismic airgun noise. These impacts range from behavioral changes such as decreased foraging, avoidance of the noise, and changes in vocalizations through displacement from important habitat, stress, decreased egg viability and growth, and decreased catch rates, to hearing impairment, massive injuries, and even death by drowning or strandings. Seismic airgun noise must be considered a serious marine environmental pollutant’15.
When interviewed by Yale Environment 360, Cornell University marine bioacoustics expert Christopher Clark said: ‘The more insidious and acute sounds come from ocean exploration for oil and gas, which is accomplished by setting off huge explosions — it used to be dynamite, and now it is seismic air guns. The exploration companies generally deploy 30 or 40 air guns that all go off simultaneously. A typical air gun survey will go off every 9 to 12 seconds. They go back and forth, back and forth, over huge areas of the ocean, like mowing the lawn — and they do this for weeks and months at a time. Imagine that every 10 seconds there is an explosion that is rattling grandma’s china out of the cupboard, and it is falling on the floor. When the sound from that
8 United Nations General Assembly 2018, ‘Resolution 73/124 ‘Oceans and the Law of the Sea’, United Nations, New York. 9 McCauley R and Duncan A 2017 ‘How do impulsive marine seismic surveys impact marine fauna and how can we reduce such impacts?’, Proceedings of Acoustics 2017, Australian Acoustics Society, 19-22 November 2017, Perth. 10 Nieukirk S et al 2012, ‘Sounds from airguns and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999-2009’, J Acoust Soc Am, 2012 Feb;131(2):1102-12. 11 Viostek P, ‘Sound effects decibel level chart’,
explosion travels through the ocean, it changes from a big bang into this big fuzzy ball of reverberating noise. The energy from all these explosions fills the oceans with noise. It becomes just one big storm of noise’16.
During the interview, Clark referred to anthropogenic underwater noise as ‘acoustical bleaching’, ‘a human-made cacophony that can tear apart the social networks of whales, adversely affecting survival and reproductive success’ and also said: ‘Many whale feeding grounds and migratory routes occur along shallow coastlines, which are now some of the noisiest, most heavily impacted habitats. If females can no longer hear the singing males through the smog of sound, they lose breeding opportunities and choices. If whales can’t hear from other whales that have found a really good patch of food, they lose opportunities to feed. Whales were trying to hide behind rocks to escape in a sound shadow when seismic surveys were being conducted along the California coast’17.
As Christopher Clark said above, prior to the use of airguns the oil and gas sector tossed live dynamite from boats to generate the shock waves for mapping resources beneath the seabed. People were dying, and vessels disappearing, so the practice was replaced by the airgun invented by geophysicist Stephen Chelminski in the 1960s18. But Chelminski has become worried about the impacts of airguns on the marine environment: ‘For the past 30 years, he’s volunteered with the non-profit Cetacean Society International which, among other initiatives, advocates against ocean noise. The air gun was an improvement over what was used before, he says, “but it’s apparent now that we need to do better”’19.
Chelminski is working on an alternative called marine vibroseis, which releases the same energy but over a longer wavelength. It hums rather than explodes.
Scientists Robert McCauley and Alex Duncan support the development of alternatives to airguns: ‘Developing and testing alternative seismic sources which are acceptable for geophysical purposes and which reduce or remove potential biological impacts is a win-win situation for everyone, neatly sidesteps the endless arguments on whether observed impacts are real or imagined, and offers a potential commercial opportunity for many’20.
4. Government responses to seismic noise Governments around the world have sought to mitigate the impacts of seismic noise. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Namibia and European Union member states are among the countries that have initiated guidelines (UK, US, Canada and Brazil), policy statements (Australia), codes of conduct (New Zealand), mandated scientific protocols (Italy) and mitigation measures (UK), and the use of species protection laws (US, Australia) aimed at minimising those impacts but with particular reference to marine mammals. Energy sector legislation has also been used (Australia) to evaluate and approve environmental assessment processes for petroleum exploration. In large part, these government responses have been driven by concerns raised by the community, scientists and the commercial and recreational fishers.
In the UK, Guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys were released in 1998 (and revised in 2017): ‘Concern over the issue of acoustic disturbance to marine mammals has led to attention being focussed on seismic surveys as one of a number of potential sources of such disturbance’ and ‘most species of 21 … … cetacean may be affected by sounds produced during seismic surveys’ .
In 2008, the Australian Government developed the ‘Policy Statement 2.1: Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The background paper to the policy statement acknowledged the risk to cetaceans from seismic noise:
16 Schiffman R 2016, ‘How ocean noise pollution wreaks havoc on marine life’, Yale Environment 360, 31 March 2016,
impact of human-made sounds may potentially result in physical and/or behavioral changes for these animals’22.
When the New Zealand Government established its 2013 Code of conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations, its reference document detailed the potential physical, 23 auditory and behavioural impacts as well as the disturbance or reduction in prey species . But in 2018, the government announced it would no longer issue permits for offshore oil and gas exploration – the existing 22 permits were not affected – as it moves New Zealand towards a carbon-neutral economy by 205024.
The EU acknowledged the issues associated with anthropogenic underwater noise in its Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Commission Decision on Good Environmental Status, which include a set of 11 descriptors or standards for EU members to attain. ‘Descriptor 11 Energy incl. Underwater Noise’ aims to ensure the ‘Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment’25.
And in the US, NOAA has produced its Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap ‘designed to support the implementation of an agency-wide strategy for addressing ocean noise over the next 10 years. The Roadmap highlights a path to expand NOAA’s historical focus on protecting specific species by additionally addressing noise impacts on high value acoustic habitats’ and a ‘series of key goals and recommendations are presented that would improve NOAA’s ability to manage both species and the places they inhabit in the context of a changing acoustic environment’26.
The four primary strategy goals27 are: Management: Expanding types of, scopes of, and coordination among NOAA authorities to address noise issues; Science and monitoring: Development of comprehensive and forward-looking science plans identifying most effective and efficient means to address critical data needs for understanding noise impacts on protected species and acoustic habitats; Decision support tools and services: Development of processes and tools to compile, geospatially depict, and analyze marine species distributions, soundscapes, and NOAA-permitted/authorized activities for use in risk assessment, mitigation development and planning; Outreach, collaboration, and stakeholder engagement: Further development of outreach programs to support the activities outlined above. Government actions on seismic noise impacts have largely been in response to community concerns about the risk to marine mammals, which were also the focus of much of the initial scientific research. Although scientists have more recently turned their attention to other marine animals (as have some governments and regulators), research on ‘the effects of seismic surveys have focused almost exclusively on the effects on individual species or related groups of species, with little scientific or regulatory attention being given to broader community-level issues’28. This may be changing, as Sarah Dolman and Michael Jasny report that regulators are moving in significant ways towards a cumulative, multi-sectoral impact management’29.
But there are concerns about the application of the government responses, as Geoff and Margi Prideaux report:
22 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008, Background paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1: Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales, DEWHA, Canberra, p.2. 23 New Zealand Department of Conservation 2012, 2012 Code of conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations reference document, Wellington, p.5. 24 Roy E 2018, ‘New Zealand bans all new offshore oil exploration as part of “carbon-neutral future”’, The Guardian, 12 April, 2018,
‘Mitigation and monitoring guidelines exist in many parts of the world; especially for offshore petroleum exploration. In many jurisdictions, these guidelines rely on environmental impact assessments (EIAs) consideration by decision-makers, yet few jurisdictions stipulate what such assessments should contain. Sound propagation in the marine environment is complex, yet robust and defensible modelling is rarely conducted. Many impact assessments are inadequately checked. This stands in contrast to the equivalent process for land-based assessments’30.
5. The impact of seismic noise on threatened and listed marine species The EPBC Act provides for the listing of threatened species and ecological communities, along with a list of marine species that are to be protected from harm in Commonwealth waters (unless a permit is granted) and a number of key threatening processes. With the exception of cetaceans, turtles and some seabirds, marine species are generally not well represented on the threatened species lists. Of 86 threatened ecological communities listed, just two are marine: Giant kelp marine forests of south eastern Australia and Posidonia australis seagrass meadows of the Manning-Hawkesbury ecoregion. Only three of 21 listed key threatening processes are directly related to marine, two of which separately cover the bycatch of marine turtles and seabirds while the third applies to the entanglement of marine fauna in marine debris.
The low representation of marine species and communities within these lists should not be seen as an indication that few of them are threatened. It is largely because there has been inadequate research into Australia’s marine environment generally and marine species more specifically. This limited body of knowledge is an important reason to proceed with caution when managing and using marine environments: ‘As a phenomenon, extinction in the sea has been a contentious issue. One reason for this is the fact that there are many fewer examples of recent extinctions in the marine environment than on land or in fresh waters, which has led to the belief that marine extinctions have been and are uncommon. Yet the work of several authors in recent years suggests and provides evidence that marine extinctions are occurring but are simply not being detected in the same way that they are in other environments. Another factor in the debate is the widespread and persistent perception that marine species are more resilient to extinction because they are – or are presumed to be – highly fecund, wide-ranging, and/or fast- growing, and, thus, should be capable of withstanding high levels of exploitation, and of recovering rapidly from low numbers. However, a growing body of scientific evidence indicates that marine species are characterized by the same attributes that account for vulnerability in terrestrial and freshwater species. Many marine species are long-lived and are late to reach sexual maturity, which puts them at an inherent disadvantage when subjected to exploitation. Many marine species are not as widespread as is commonly believed but are restricted by the heterogenous nature of the marine environment and/or limited dispersal capabilities to small, in some instances very small, ranges. Further, high fecundity has been shown not to be associated with higher rates of reproduction or to ensure against over-exploitation. Finally, there is increasing evidence that marine populations do not recover from severe depletion even when fishing ceases’ and ‘The currently available evidence indicates that extinction in the sea is, and will become, a much larger problem than is currently recognized’31.
This section of the submission reviews the impact of seismic noise on threatened and listed marine species as well as zooplankton, which is the foundation of marine food chains.
5.1 Threatened species of marine mammals Much of the initial research on the effects of anthropogenic underwater noise, including boat noise, drilling and seismic noise, focused on cetaceans, as did government responses. Whales and dolphins are charismatic and endangered marine animals that are also relatively easy to observe.
When reviewing the effects of seismic noise on marine mammals in 2004, Jonathan Gordon and his colleagues found that:
30 Prideaux G and Prideaux M 2016, ‘Environmental impact assessment guidelines for offshore petroleum exploration seismic surveys’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 34, 2016 Issue 1, pp33-43. 31 Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (Editors) 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv +, p.43. 9 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 ‘behavioral observations are typically variable, some findings are contradictory, and the biological significance of these effects has not been measured. Where feeding, orientation, hazard avoidance, migration or social
behavior are altered, it is possible that populations could be adversely affected. There may also be serious long-term consequences due to chronic exposure, and sound could affect marine mammals indirectly by changing the accessibility of their prey species32.
The scientists concluded that: ‘A precautionary approach to management and regulation must be recommended. While such large degrees of uncertainty remain, this may result in restrictions to operational practices but these could be relaxed if key uncertainties are clarified by appropriate research’33.
Seismic noise has been shown to affect communications between whales. Manuel Castellotte, Christopher Clark and Mark Stammers found that male fin whales modified their songs when background noise increased, and left an area when airgun blasts occurred34. Blue whales consistently called more in response to a seismic survey low-medium power sparker, according to another 2004 study35 by Christopher Clark, this time with Lucia di Iorio. Susanna Blackwell and others reported that singing by bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea was also disrupted, with calling rates declining when close to seismic operations, while at approximately 160dB the ‘whales were virtually silent’36. Off the Angolan coast, Salvatore Cerchiuo and colleagues found that the number of humpback whale singers significantly decreased as airgun noise increased, suggesting that the ‘breeding display of humpback whales is disrupted by seismic survey activity, and thus merits further attention and study, and potentially conservation action in the case of sensitive breeding populations’37.
Whales have been observed avoiding seismic noise. Robert McCauley and colleagues studied humpback whale responses to a 3-D seismic survey off the Western Australian coast and found the whales took ‘some avoidance manoeuvre at greater than 4 km from the vessel’, while ‘pods containing cows which were involved in resting behaviour in key habitat types, as opposed to migrating animals, were more sensitive and showed an avoidance response estimated at 7–12 km from a large seismic source’38. The researchers also subjected caged turtles, squid and fish to an approaching single airgun, with each exhibiting an alarm response.
The abundance of sperm whales within a seismic survey area in the Gulf of Mexico dropped dramatically according to data gathered in 1993 by Bruce Mate, Kathleen Stafford and Donald Ljungblad39, again suggesting an avoidance response. In another study of Gulf of Mexico sperm whales, Patrick Miller and five colleagues found that although the animals did not avoid the airgun, they reduced their swimming effort and foraging (by 10-20%): ‘Even small reductions in foraging rate from behavioral disruption or disturbed prey could lead to lower calving rates and thereby hinder recovery of depleted populations’40.
Seismic noise can also reduce species diversity, according to research by Cristiano Parente and Janaina and Maria Araujo during seismic surveys off the coast of Brazil in 2000 and 2001. They concluded that ‘a relationship exists between diversity of cetaceans and intensity of seismic surveys between 1999 and 2004’ and that the
32 Gordon J et al 2004, ‘A review of the effects of seismic survey on marine mammals’, Marine Technology Society Journal, vol.37, Number 4, Winter 2003-04. 33 Ibid. 34 Castellote M, Clark C and Lammers M 2012, ‘Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise’, Biological Conservation, Vol 147, Issue 1, March 2012, pp 115-122. 35 Di Iorio L and Clark C 2009, ‘Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication’, Biol. Lett. (2010) 6, 51–54. 36 Blackwell S et al 2015, ‘Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: Evidence for two behavioral thresholds’, PLoS ONE 10(6): e0125720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720. 37 Cerchio S et al 2014, ‘Seismic surveys negatively affect humpback whale singing activity off Northern Angola’, PLoS ONE 9(3): e86464. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086464. 38 McCauley et al 2000, ‘Marine seismic surveys: A study of environmental implications’, APPEA Journal 2000. 39 Mate B, Stafford K and Ljungblad D 1994, ‘A change in sperm whale (Physeter macroephalus) distribution correlated to seismic th surveys in the Gulf of Mexico’, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 96, No 5, Pt. 2, November 1994, 128 Meeting: Acoustical Society of America, p.3268. 40 Miller P et al 2009, ‘Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico’, Deep-Sea Research 1, doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2009.02.008. 10 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 results ‘suggest that species diversity might be used as a long-term indicator of the impact of seismic surveys on cetaceans’41.
The behaviour of whales can be affected in other ways by seismic noise. In 2014 and 2015, Rebecca Dunlop and others observed that humpback whales migrating along Australia’s east coast slowed down to below typical migratory speeds in response to seismic noise42. Carolyn Stone and Mark Tasker found that small toothed whales ‘showed the strongest lateral spatial avoidance (extending at least as far as the limit of visual observation) in 43 response to active airguns, while baleen whales and killer whales ‘showed more localised spatial avoidance’ . Caroline Weir, when observing cetaceans off the Angolan coast in 2004 and 2005, discovered that ‘Atlantic spotted dolphins showed a marked short-term and localised displacement from the region of active airguns’. However, she saw ‘No conspicuous localised avoidance of active airguns by humpback or sperm whales44.
Seismic noise may also cause physiological changes in whales. Tracy Romano and others measured increased levels of stress markers in the blood of beluga whales45 subjected to seismic noise, while James Finneran and his colleagues found that high intensity sound can cause a loss of hearing sensitivity46.
Enrico Pirotta and three others investigated the effect of seismic noise on the activity budgets of harbour porpoises that stayed within a survey area in north-east Scotland. Their focus was the echolocation clicks (or buzz) of the porpoises, which they found to be reduced by 15% during the survey: ‘Porpoises may use high-repetition click trains for prey capture or for social communication. Thus, observed 47 changes in buzzing occurrence could reflect disruption of either foraging or social activities’ .
Changes in whale singing patterns and avoidance manoeuvres are the sublethal impacts of seismic noise on cetaceans. However, two studies observed the potential for lethal effects.
Howard Gray and Koen Van Waerebeek reported in a 2011 paper on the likely death a dolphin during a seismic survey in waters off Liberia: ‘The dolphin, presumably in acoustic distress, lifted its head and cervical region above the surface in an oblique, strikingly rigid posture during 5 min. Turbulent white-water evidenced a major propulsory thrust. Incremental postural instability and apparent exhaustion progressed to a catatonic-like state of akinesia as the dolphin rolled over onto one side, then its back before sinking virtually motionless close to the airgun array. Unless it recovered full locomotory control, asphyxiation was inevitable’ ‘As behaviour was spatially and temporally … 48 closely associated with firing seismic airguns, we suggest a cause-effect relationship’ .
David Mann and others examined the stranded remains of eight species of dolphins and discovered that: ‘Approximately 57% of the bottlenose dolphins and 36% of the rough-toothed dolphins had significant hearing deficits with a reduction in sensitivity equivalent to severe (70-90 dB) or profound (>90 dB) hearing loss in
41 Parente C, Araújo, J and Araújo M 2007, ‘Diversity of cetaceans as tool in monitoring environmental impacts of seismic surveys’, Biota Neotrop. Jan/Apr 2007 vol. 7, no.1. 42 Dunlop et al 2017, ‘The behavioural response of migrating humpback whales to a full seismic airgun array’, Proc. R. Soc. B 284: 20171901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1901. 43 Stone C and Tasker M 2006, ‘The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters’, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8(3):255–263, 2006. 44 Weir C 2008, ‘Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration off Angola’, Aquatic Mammals 2008, 34(1), 71-83, DOI 10.1578/AM.34.1.2008.71. 45 Romano T et al 2004, ‘Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound exposure’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 1124-1134. 46 Finneran et al 2005, ‘Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones’, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 118, 2696-2705. 47 Pirotta E et al 2014, ‘Variation in harbour porpoise activity in response to seismic survey noise’, Biol. Lett. 10: 20131090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1090. 48 Gray H and Van Waerebeek K 2011, ‘Postural instability and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in proximity to operating airguns of a geophysical seismic vessel’, Journal for Nature Conservation xxx (2011) xxx– xxx. 11 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 humans’ ... ‘Hearing impairment could play a significant role in some cetacean stranding events, and the hearing of all cetaceans in rehabilitation should be tested’49.
In a 2016 letter to then US President Barack Obama, 28 leading marine scientists urged him to suspend seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean because: ‘Airgun surveys used for oil and gas exploration are known to have large-scale effects on baleen whale species, including the disruption of activities vital to foraging and reproduction over vast ocean areas. Most recently they have been linked to significant reductions in the probability of calf survival in western Pacific gray whales, another endangered baleen whale population. The ensonification of right whale habitats by seismic 50 exploration is likely to disrupt essential behavior and degrade important habitat’ .
Although cetaceans dominate the research on seismic noise impacts on marine mammals, there has been some overseas research on pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and fur seals). When assessing the risks for pinnipeds in 2012, Australia’s Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities found that they: ‘are likely to be susceptible to increased noise levels or increased noise pollution – for example, from seismic survey, construction or operational activities. The impacts of noise disturbance on Australian pinnipeds have not been investigated. Studies from elsewhere and on similar species indicate that they may be impacted by seismic surveys and other sources of noise, such as shipping or construction. Harbor seals display strong avoidance behaviour (swimming rapidly away from the source) and cessation of feeding in response to air-gun explosions of the type generated through seismic surveys. Similar avoidance responses were documented during trials with grey seals: they changed from making foraging dives and moved away from the source, and some seals hauled out, possibly to avoid the noise. Responses to more powerful commercial arrays may be more extreme and longer lasting, and occur at greater distances’51. 5.2 Threatened marine species: marine turtles Like whales, marine turtles are charismatic, yet research on noise impacts has been extremely limited. Robert McCauley and others observed that caged green and loggerhead turtles increased their swimming speeds and behaved erratically in response to airgun blasts52. In 2012, Stacey DeRuiter and Kamel Doukara reported that a group of loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea off Algeria responded by diving to avoid airgun noise53. As well as limitations of data, Sarah Nelms and others in 2016 noted a lack of government policy in relation to the risks facing turtles: ‘While exploration occurs in the waters of at least fifty countries where marine turtles are present, the degree of threat posed by seismic surveys is almost entirely unknown’ ‘Possible ramifications for turtles include … exclusion from critical habitats, damage to hearing and entanglement in seismic survey equipment. Despite this, the policy comparison revealed that only three countries [Brazil, Canada and US] worldwide currently include turtles in their seismic mitigation guidelines and very few of the measures they specify are based on scientific evidence or proven effectiveness’54.
Loggerhead turtles aggregate for courtship, foraging and their journey to nesting locations. They could be impacted by seismic surveys off the Western Australian and Northern Territory coasts. 5.3 EPBC-listed marine species: sea snakes There are more than 30 species of sea snakes in Australia’s tropical coastal waters, with 14 of those at one-time recorded at Ashmore Reef. Only two of the 30 species are on the EPBC Act’s threatened species list (Critically Endangered). These are the short-nosed sea snake and leaf-scaled sea snake, both of which have been recorded at Ashmore Reef. However, all 30 sea snakes are listed as marine species under the Act’s s248. That sections states that it is an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a listed species unless a permit has been granted.
49 Mann D et al 2010, ‘Hearing loss in stranded odontocete dolphins and whales’, PLoS One, 2010 Nov 3; 5(11):e13824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013824. 50 Natural Resource Defense Council 2016, ‘Seismic Right Whales Statement’,
Mick Guinea raised concerns about the causes of the decline in sea snake populations when reporting on surveys he conducted in 2012 and 2013. He noted that the expansion of the oil and gas sector on the Sahul Shelf would bring ‘increased vessel traffic, noise, seismic surveys, pile driving, drilling and removal of structures. There has been no study of how these activities affect the sea snakes and marine turtles, all of which are EPBC listed threatened marine species’56.
In an earlier paper presentation, Mick Guinea listed a number of ‘Possible, but unsubstantiated, causes including the increased frequency and closer proximity of seismic surveys and gas well construction by petroleum companies’. He also said that ‘Sea snakes are the marine equivalent of the miner’s canary for reef health. Yet the cause of their decline in numbers and species at Ashmore Reef remains the “elephant in the room” until examined afresh’57.
Research by Jenna Crewe-Riddell and others suggested that sea snakes may be able to feel vibrations (or sound) in the water: ‘The recent declines of sea snakes from Ashmore reef are mysterious and alarming. Neighbouring reefs in the Timor Sea, such as Scott Reef, also appear to be experiencing similar declines and rarer species haven’t been seen at all in the last decade, despite increases in survey efforts. Sea snakes are top predators that specialise on an array of fish, eels, eggs, cephalopods and crustaceans, they also serve as prey for various sharks and sea birds. The disappearance of 13 ecologically distinct species from a single reef could have downstream effects on that ecosystem’s food web that are yet to be fully realised’58.
Later research by Lucille Chapuis and others confirmed the hearing of sea snakes. They found that: ‘sea snakes are sensitive to low-frequency sounds but have relatively low sensitivity compared with bony fishes and marine turtles. Additional studies are required to understand the role of sound in sea snake life history and further assess these species’ vulnerability to anthropogenic noise’59.
A review of approved seismic surveys by NOPSEMA between 2012 and 2019 for this submission revealed that 12 were conducted in the region of the Scott, Seringapatam and Ashmore reefs and Cartier Island, with five of those from 2012 to 2014 (other surveys have occurred there prior to this period). Research is urgently required to determine whether seismic surveys are implicated in the decline of the region’s sea snake numbers. 5.4 EPBC-listed marine species: seahorses To assist with their conservation, seahorses, pipefish and sea dragons (all syngnathids, of which there are 120 species in Australia) are listed as marine species under the EPBC Act. Research for this submission has found only one study of the impact of anthropogenic underwater noise on seahorses. In that case, University of Florida PhD student, Paul Anderson, for a month the response of the lined seahorse (found in the Atlantic Ocean) to loud aquaria noise (126–133dB) in US public aquaria. He found that: ‘Seahorses exposed to loud noise in aquaria for one month demonstrated physiological, chronic stress responses: reduced weight and body condition, and increased heterophil to lymphocyte ratio. By week four, animals in loud tanks demonstrated variable performance of clicking and piping, putative distress behaviors’60 .
55 Lukoschek V et al 2013, ‘Enigmatic declines of Australia’s sea snakes from a biodiversity hotspot’, Biological Conservation 166 (2013) 191–202. 56 Guinea M 2013, ‘Surveys of the sea snakes and sea turtles on reefs of the Sahul Shelf’, Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment Charles Darwin University, Darwin 0909, p.64. 57 Guinea M 2012, ‘Dwindling sea snakes at Ashmore Reef: Searching for the “Elephant in the Room”’, paper presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Society for Integrated and Comparative Biology. 58 Crewe-Riddell J 2016 ‘My first scientific paper: sea snakes may have a unique underwater sense’,
Although some seabirds have been disturbed by operating windfarms62, there is very little research available on the impact of seismic noise. But in one recent key study, Lorien Pichegru and three colleagues explored the reaction of endangered African penguins to a 2013 seismic survey within 100 km of their breeding colonies (St Croix Island and Bird Island in Algoa Bay South Africa): ‘Penguins showed a strong avoidance of their preferred foraging areas during seismic activities, foraging significantly further from the survey vessel when in operation, while increasing their overall foraging effort’63.
In a 2018 online article about the research, Pichegru said: ‘The vessel’s noise may have chased the penguins into sub-optimal foraging areas, and possibly even damaged their hearing. The extra distance also meant the adult penguins had to use more energy while foraging. For a species that’s already under pressure, these factors can have important consequences for their survival and that of their offspring’64.
Pichegru recommended that seismic surveys should not be allowed within 100 kilometres of penguin colonies.
5.6 The foundation of marine food chains: zooplankton Research in southern Tasmanian waters by the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) and the Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) at Curtin University measured the impacts of seismic noise on zooplankton. The scientists found that seismic noise could cause a two- to three-fold increase in mortality of adult and larval zooplankton – from 18 per cent to 40-60 per cent65 – and concluded that: ‘There is a significant and unacknowledged potential for ocean ecosystem function and productivity to be negatively impacted by present seismic technology’ ‘Impacted animals might not die immediately after air … gun exposure, but rather may be disabled in their sensory capacity with an accompanying loss of fitness and so increased predation risk through time’66.
Prior to this research, it was thought that the impacts on zooplankton larvae (in this case krill) were limited to 10 metres from the airgun, but the new results showed this extended to at least the study area’s boundary of 1200 metres. Lead author, Robert McCauley, said: ‘Zooplankton underpin the health and productivity of global marine ecosystems and what this research has shown is that commercial seismic surveys could cause significant disruption to their population levels’67.
CSIRO scientists used the IMAS and CMST methods when assessing the impact of seismic noise on zooplankton 2 in 2880km of tropical waters on Western Australia’s North West Shelf. They found ‘substantial impact within 68 the seismic survey area and within 15 km of it’ although these were ‘barely discernible within 150 km’ .
Data analysis by Canada’s Department of Fisheries in 2019 has shown that phytoplankton and zooplankton in Labrador and Newfoundland had declined by 50% over the previous five years, along with a shift in composition to smaller species. Although the department has not linked the reduction to seismic surveys, which increased in
61 Tiller S 2013, ‘Seabird breeding colonies on the Abrolhos Islands indicators of overall marine health’, ABC News, 24 December 2013,
6. The impacts of seismic surveys on marine life targeted by fishers Commercial and recreational fishers have become increasingly concerned about the impacts of seismic noise on the marine species they target. Changes to the populations, behaviour and locations of the targeted species can affect catches and have social and economic consequences. This section of the submission reviews the available research on the effect of noise on various targeted marine species including finfish, lobsters, scallops and squid. 6.1 Finfish Fish abundance, catches and catch rates have been shown to decline during seismic surveys.
Two temperate reefs off the coast of North Carolina were monitored by Avery Paxton and others during a 2014 seismic survey, with the scientists finding that: ‘During seismic surveying, reef-fish abundance declined by 78% during evening hours when fish habitat use was highest on the previous three days without seismic noise. Despite absence of videos documenting fish returns after seismic surveying, the significant reduction in fish occupation of the reef represents disruption to daily pattern. This numerical response confirms that conservation concerns associated with seismic surveying are realistic’70.
Barry Bruce and others examined the impacts on fish and subsequent catch rates from a 2-D seismic survey (it uses a single line not multiple lines as with 3-D) conducted during 2015 in the Gippsland Basin of Bass Strait. They found that many sharks left the area (although some returned) during the survey, tiger flathead increased their swimming speed and changed their daily movement patterns, and there were lower catch rates for three species (gummy shark, red gurnard, and sawshark). However, another six species (tiger flathead, goatfish, elephantfish, boarfish, broadnose shark and school shark) had higher catch rates after the survey71.
A study by Bill Streever and others at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska also found lowered and increased catch rates across species, ‘perhaps reflecting displacement of fish in response to air gun sounds throughout the study area’72. So too did Arill Engas and others in the Arctic Ocean’s Barents Sea where a seismic survey, ‘severely affected fish 73 distribution, local abundance, and catch rates’ , with trawl and longline catches (by mass) of cod and haddock declining by 50 per cent, and longline catches of cod by 21 per cent.
Jane Fewtrell and Robert McCauley conducted six airgun trials off the Western Australian coast to observe the response of captive marine fish and squid. As airgun noise increased, the fish moved faster, formed tighter groups and moved towards the bottom of the water column and also exhibited alarm responses74.
When reviewing research on the effects of airguns on marine animals, Lindy Weilgart observed: ‘Seismic airgun noise has also been shown to decrease fish egg viability and larval growth, increase embryonic mortality and lead to damage of brain cells and neuromasts in turbot larvae75.
Large fish such as tuna can also be affected by underwater noise. Gianluca Sara and colleagues investigated the impact of boat noise on northern bluefin tuna (a species very similar to the southern bluefin tuna found in Australian waters). They found that:
69 Lake H 2019, ‘Calls to end seismic testing off NFLD and Labrador as plankton levels plunge’, iPolitics, 14 January 2019,
David Russell reports that seismic surveys have been occurring along the entire west coast of Africa, and at the same time albacore tuna catches have dropped dramatically: ‘the dominant conclusion of the Namibian Large Pelagic Industry is that noise from seismic exploration by the oil 77 and gas industry is chasing away the migratory tuna’ .
The potential impact of seismic noise on the migration of southern bluefin tuna is discussed later in section 8.3.
Fish are less mobile than whales, which can adjust their course to avoid seismic noise. Fish swimming speeds are slower than the speed of seismic survey vessels and, as Robert McCauley reports: ‘many fish which may try to flee an approaching seismic source may physically be unable to do so, at least to what can be considered a ‘safe’ range from the seismic vessel beyond which the air gun signal will not lead to physical trauma’78.
In a review of underwater noise impacts for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Craig McPherson and others cited research that showed that anthropogenic sounds ‘cause changes in schooling patterns and distribution, including in relation to airgun operations’, and that fish recovery from non-mortal injuries ‘could reduce fitness and lead indirectly to mortality’79. They also commented that: ‘Sound might indirectly affect marine mammals by affecting the abundance of their prey. Fish and squid form a major part of the diet of marine mammals. Because marine fish are typically sensitive to the 100–500 Hz range, where most anthropogenic sound is produced, increasing sound levels above typical ambient levels are a concern for fish populations’80.
DNV Energy, a company that provides advisory services to energy companies, conducted an extensive literature review on the impacts of seismic noise on fish, fish catches and marine mammals. It did so for a collaboration between the fishing and oil and gas sectors81, finding that: ‘The effects are often classified as immediate mortality (short-term effects), mortality over time (long-term effects) and non-lethal injuries. Although some injuries do not as such lead to directly lethal conditions for the organisms, such effects can indirectly lead to the same fatal conditions via reduced ability to assimilate food, or a change in swimming capacity which makes them more vulnerable in relation to predatory fish’ … ‘Another issue is potential disturbances that spawning fish may be exposed to in spawning areas and during concentrated spawning journeys to the spawning grounds. This can change the areas that are used for spawning, and possibly the timing of the spawning, so that spawning conditions become less favorable. This could at worst reduce the total annual reproduction’82.
The review also found that some fish moved away from the noise source: ‘Field experiments have demonstrated that sound energy transmitted from air guns initiates this type of response on the part of cod, redfish species, European sea bass and sandeel’ ‘These experiments were … followed up by field tests on Atlantic salmon, several species of Pacific salmon, silver eel and several species of cyprinids. In all of these studies, intense infrasound resulted in escape reactions’83.
The DNV Energy review also considered the literature on the impacts of seismic noise on fish catches: ‘For a long time, fishers have expressed concern that certain types of geophysical surveys conducted in fishery areas led to smaller catches. Scientific studies have been conducted to examine and quantify such effects
76 Sara G et al 2007, ‘Effect of boat noise on the behaviour of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Mediterranean Sea’, Mar Ecol Prog Ser 331: 243–253, 2007. 77 Russell D 2013, ‘Seismic noise disturbance of albacore tuna’, Presentation for The Benguela Current Commission (BCC) Science Forum, September 2013. 78 McCauley R and Duncan A 2017. 79 McPherson C et al 2017, ‘Great Barrier Reef underwater noise guidelines: Discussion and options paper’, GBRMPA, Townsville. 80 Ibid. 81 DNV Energy 2007, ‘Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches and sea mammals 2007-0512 rev 01, Cooperation group: Fishery Industry and Petroleum Industry, Norway. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 16 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 from firing air guns. All of these studies demonstrated catch reductions during the course of the air gun shooting, compared with catches before the shooting began’84.
The government agency, Marine Scotland, has produced fishery sensitivity maps that show the location of spawning and nursery areas for important commercial fish and ‘have been widely used by industry to reduce the 85 risk of noise damage to fish at sensitive stages through activities such as seismic survey and pile-driving’ . Unfortunately, maps similar to these have not been produced for fisheries in Australia.
6.2 Lobsters and scallops In the December 2017 issue of its magazine Fish, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) 86 reported on the results of research by IMAS and the CMST aimed at determining the impacts of seismic noise on the southern rock lobster and the commercial scallop. The two species ‘exposed to differing numbers of passes by the air gun at distances designed to mimic the exposures they would experience in the wild’87.
The noise caused behavioural and physiological changes in the scallops and lobsters. Both species showed low immune cell counts after exposure to the seismic noise, while the southern rock lobsters also experienced a decrease in tail extension reflex, which makes it difficult for the animal to right itself after being placed on its back88, leading to increased vulnerability to predators. Damage to statocyst and righting reflexes ‘persisted for at least one year – surprisingly, even after the exposed lobsters moulted’89. The FRDC recommended further research.
When interviewed by ABC News, lead author Ryan Day said that: ‘There was very little known about the effects of seismic surveys on invertebrates like lobsters and scallops. They’re really important fisheries and if we’re having an impact on them it’s important to understand what that impact is and how we can minimise it’90.
Jayson Semmens, the study’s principal investigator commented in an IMAS online article that ‘while the ecological impacts of the damage were not evaluated, the impairment would likely affect a lobster’s ability to function in the wild’.91
In subsequent papers on the research, Ryan Day and others reported that: ‘exposed scallops were found to have significantly increased mortality rates; disrupted behavioral patterns and reflex responses, both during and following exposure; and altered hemolymph biochemistry, physiology, and osmoregulation capacity. These results indicate that air gun exposure has a harmful impact on scallops and raises concern over the impact on bivalves, due to their global ecological and economic importance’92 and that ‘damage and impairment adds further evidence that anthropogenic aquatic noise has the potential to harm invertebrates, necessitating a better understanding of possible ecological and economic impacts’93.
The four-year, FRDC-funded research program on lobsters and scallops was in response to fisher concerns that seismic surveys had caused a massive die-off of scallops in 2010. Bridport scallop fisher Allan Barnett was quoted as saying that: ‘The industry blames the seismic activity for the death of virtually all the scallops in that bed which was 24,000 tonne – about $70 million worth’ and ‘in this particular case, every single thing on the seabed was dead that we were pulling up – every scallop, every hermit crab, every cockle’94.
84 Ibid. 85 Marine Scotland, ‘Update to the sensitivity maps for British waters’,
In other research on the effects of seismic noise on southern rock lobsters by Quinn Fitzgibbon and others, results indicated that: ‘the biochemical haematological homeostasis of J. edwardsii is reasonably resilient to seismic acoustic signals, however, air gun exposure may negatively influence the lobster’s nutritional condition and immunological capacity’96.
Jeremiah Payne and colleagues at Fisheries and Oceans Canada observed behavioural changes (and significant changes 97 in blood chemistry) in American rock lobsters during and well after seismic surveys . Natascha Aguilar de Soto and others in a lab-based experiment found that when New Zealand scallop larvae were exposed to seismic noise, they ‘showed significant developmental delays and 46% developed body abnormalities’98. 6.3 Bivalves, marine snails and crabs Pacific oysters were the subject of an experiment conducted by Mohcine Charifi and others in a raceway on the shore of France’s Bay of Arcachon. When acoustic energies were high enough, the oysters closed their shells, with maximum sensitivity at low frequencies. The researchers then proposed that: ‘the hearing ability in oysters could (i) play a role in synchronizing spawning events (ii) influence spawning 99 efficiency and then (iii) participate indirectly in the control of oyster population dynamics’ .
In her review of the effects of seismic airguns on marine life, Lindy Weilgart summarised research into their effects on a bivalve, a marine snail and snow crabs: ‘A bivalve, Paphia aurea, showed acoustic stress as evidenced by hydrocortisone, glucose, and lactate levels when subjected to seismic noise. Catch rates also declined with seismic noise exposure in Bolinus brandaris, a gastropod, the purple dye murex. In snow crab, bruised ovaries and injuries to the equilibrium receptor system or statocysts were also observed. Seismic noise-exposed crabs showed sediments in their gills and statocysts, and changes consistent with a stress response compared with control animals’100.
Nathan Edmunds and colleagues summarised research on underwater noise impacts for UK commercial crustacean species, reporting that blue crabs suffered ‘mortality as a direct result of close range underwater explosions’, Norway lobsters ‘have been found to bury less deeply, flush their burrows less regularly and are considerably less active when exposed to impulsive anthropogenic noise’, and that the ‘findings have implications with regard to species fitness, stress and compensatory foraging requirements, along with increased exposure to predators’101.
6.4 Squid Giant squid are portrayed as mysterious denizens of the deep in popular writings. That mystery extends to it reactions to seismic noise, but research by Angel Guerra, Angel Gonzalez and Francisco Rocha, reported in 2004, may have shed some light: ‘Two incidents of multiple strandings affecting nine specimens in 2001 and 2003 appear to be linked spatially and temporally to geophysical prospecting using air-gun arrays in the Bay of Biscay. Here we present evidence of acute tissue damage in the stranded and surface-floating giant squids. The incidence of such cases during two research cruises contemporary with integrated geological and geophysical studies of the
95 Ibid. 96 Fitzgibbon Q et al 2017, ‘The impact of seismic air gun exposure on the haemolymph physiology and nutritional condition of spiny lobster, Jasus edwardsii’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 125, Issues 1–2, 15 December 2017, Pages 146-156. 97 Payne J et al 2007, Pilot study on the effects of seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Report Number 2712 and Payne J et al 2008, Potential effects of seismic energy on fish and shellfish: An update since 2003, Report Number 2008/060, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. 22 pp. 98 Aguilar de Soto N 2013, ‘Anthropogenic noise causes body malformations and delays development in marine larvae’, Scientific Reports, 3: 2831, DOI: 10.1038/srep02831 1. 99 Charifi M et al 2017, ‘The sense of hearing in the Pacific oyster, Magallana gigas’, PLoS ONE 12(10): e0185353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0185353. 100 Weilgart L 2013. 101 Edmunds N et al 2016, ‘A review of crustacean sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: Data needs for effective risk assessment in relation to UK commercial species’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 108 (2016) 5–11. 18 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 continental margin of the Cantabric Sea indicate that acoustic factors could have caused or contributed to the organ and tissue lesions that probably caused the deaths of these animals’102.
The southern giant squid is one of the three known giant squid species. It winters in the cooler waters of Australia’s continental shelf to feed on grenadier fish, becomes prey to northerly migrating sperm whales103 and could potentially interact with seismic surveys. The giant squid is not targeted by commercial fishers who instead search for much smaller squid species. In a captive experiment, small squid (European squid, European common cuttlefish, common octopus and southern shortfin squid) caught off Spain’s Catalan coast were subjected to low-frequency noise equivalent to airguns. Michel Andre and the other scientists involved found: ‘morphological and ultrastructural evidence of massive acoustic trauma, not compatible with life, in four cephalopod species subjected to low-frequency controlled-exposure experiments. Exposure to low-frequency sounds resulted in permanent and substantial alterations of the sensory hair cells of the statocysts, the structures responsible for the animals’ sense of balance and position. These results indicate a need for further environmental regulation of human activities that introduce high-intensity, low-frequency sounds in the world’s oceans’104.
Australia’s Southern Squid Jig Fishery stretches from southern Queensland to the Victorian-South Australian border. The arrow squid, also known as Gould’s, flying or torpedo squid, is the targeted species. It aggregates near the seabed during the day and then moves up the water column at night. From February to March the squid aggregate to spawn, with their range overlapping areas where the oil and gas sector is active. Some commercial fishers have reported the absence of squid during seismic surveys105. 6.5 Conservation-dependent species targeted by fishers The threatened fauna species list of the EPBC Act includes eight fish species under the category ‘conservation dependent’. These are fish that have suffered dramatic population collapses due to overfishing. They also form spawning, feeding, breeding or migratory aggregations that could be at risk from seismic noise. The species include: ● blue warehou: found in southern waters around Tasmania and off southern NSW and western Victoria. It is considered overfished and struggling to rebuild its population. Blue warehou spawning areas overlap with seismic operations and this could undermine stock rebuilding; ● orange roughy: previously decimated by overfishing, its schooling and spawning aggregations overlap with areas of interest from the oil and gas sector; ● eastern gemfish: aggregates to migrate up the east coast to spawn. It has experienced a population collapse due to overfishing. The migratory path of the eastern gemfish overlaps with areas of interest for seismic surveys and could be disrupted, undermining any management effort to rebuild the stock; ● southern bluefin tuna: research (see Section 8.3) indicates that the migratory path of this tuna species could have been impacted by seismic noise in the Great Australian Bight. Once past the Bight, the tuna head north along the west coast and through the waters of the North West Shelf where seismic noise is also an ongoing threat.
7. The location and number of seismic surveys in Australia Airgun seismic surveys have been conducted in Australian waters for decades and largely based in the North-West Shelf (between Exmouth and Darwin), the Otway Basin in South West Victoria, and Bass Strait (see Figure 1: red areas were surveyed before 1996 and the blue areas between 2006-2010). The Great Australian Bight has become another area of interest to the oil and gas sector, along with the waters off Newcastle, the Top End and the Gulf of Carpentaria.
102 Guerra A, Gonzalez A and Rocha F 2004, ‘A review of the records of giant squid in the north-eastern Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations’, ICES Annual Science Conference 22–25 September 2004, Vigo, Spain, ICES CM 2004 / CC: 29 103 Reuters 2007, ‘Rare giant squid washed up in Australia’, Reuters, 11 July 2007,
106 Figure 1 Seismic surveys pre-1996 and 2006-2010 Seismic surveys before 1996 are in red, and from 2006 to 2010, blue.
107 Figure 2: Seismic surveys (red) in Australian waters 2012 to 30 June 2018
Based on data from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) website (accessed 18 November 2019), the number of approved seismic surveys in Australia’s oceans between 2012 and 2019 were: ● Western Australia: 65, with most in the North West region followed by the waters off the Pilbara. Of the 22 of the surveys overlapped marine parks, another 14 abutted marine parks; ● South Australia: 5 with each overlapping marine parks (a sixth overlapped South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania); ● Victoria and Tasmania: 12, with six overlapping marine parks ● New South Wales: 1; ● Queensland: 1 (abutting West Cape York Marine Park in the Gulf of Carpentaria); ● Northern Territory: 5 with three overlapping marine parks.
Another four seismic surveys are currently under assessment by NOPSEMA. The proposals are: ● Gem 3D Marine Seismic Survey by Sapura OMV Upstream in waters 75 km west of the Oceanic Shoals Marine Park in the North West Marine Region;
106 National Environmental Research Program Marine Biodiversity Hub 2015, ‘Collating existing pressure data for the Commonwealth marine area’, in 2011-2015 Final Report. 107 National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) Annual report of activities 2017–18 20 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 ● 2D seismic survey by Inpex Browse E&P over a huge area of the North West Marine Region and overlapping large areas of the Kimberley Marine Park. Scott and Seringapatam reefs are less than 20 km away; ● Sauropod 3D Seismic Survey by 3D Oil Limited in waters between Eighty Mile Beach and Argo Rowley Terrace marine parks; ● Woodside Energy’s North-west Australia 4D MSS overlapping the Montebello Islands Marine Park and only 50 km north of the Gascoyne Marine Park.
Individual seismic survey incursions have been occurring inside certain zones in Australian Marine Parks since they were declared. But in 2017 (South East) and 2018 (other marine regions), seismic surveys were given blanket approval across all marine parks108 under a class approval for mining issued by the Director of National Parks under s359B of the EPBC Act. According to the Australian Marine Parks website of Parks Australia: While no oil and gas is produced in our marine parks at present, oil and gas mining operations could be allowed to occur in some ‘blue’ zoned areas of the marine parks in the future, subject to assessment and approval by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA), the regulator of Australia’s offshore oil and gas industry. The management plans set out zones and rules for Australian Marine Parks. Mining operations, including exploration, are allowed in most Special Purpose Zones, Special Purpose Zones (Trawl) and all Multiple Use Zones [blue zones], subject to a class approval. Mining is not allowed in: ● Sanctuary, National Park, Recreational Use, Habitat Protection and Special Purpose (Mining exclusion) zones ● the Coral Sea Marine Park109.
The Australian Marine Parks website also states that: ‘The class approvals authorise activities undertaken in accordance with an Environment Plan accepted under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 by NOPSEMA. No additional assessment is required by the Director of National Parks for the above activities when undertaken in accordance with the relevant class approval110.
There is an increasing body of evidence, as discussed in the previous sections of this submission, that seismic surveys harm marine life. Further, there are many knowledge gaps on the impacts of seismic noise. Allowing seismic surveys within or adjacent to marine parks is a failure to recognise the important values of these protected areas and undermines their purpose, which is to conserve biodiversity and degrade the many benefits that marine parks bring for tourism, fish stocks, climate change resilience and regional economies.
8. Community and fishing sector concerns about seismic noise in Australia As the marine footprint of the oil and gas sector has expanded both here and overseas, coastal communities, scientists and commercial and recreational fishers have become increasingly concerned about the impact of seismic noise on marine life and fisheries. There are now calls for stronger government action and increased research into the impacts of seismic noise. This submission now reviews the issues of community and fisher concern around Australia. 8.1 Northern Territory The Northern Territory’s Top End waters support six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles, with nesting beaches on Tiwi Islands, Bare Sand Island, Groote Eylandt, Cobourg Peninsula and Arnhem Land (the flatback turtle only nests on Top End beaches). Fifteen whale and dolphin species, including the recently discovered Australian snubfin dolphin, 20 species of sea snakes, significant populations of the vulnerable dugong and the iconic and threatened large-toothed sawfish are also found in the Top End, which has some of the last healthy tropical waters in the world. Along with unique natural values, the Top End’s marine waters are connected to the culture of Indigenous communities. They are also part of the region’s recreational lifestyle (25% of the population fish) and support a
108 Australian Marine Parks, ‘Mining’, https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/activities/do-i-need-an-approval/mining/, accessed 2 December 2019. 109 Australian Marine Parks, ‘Mining’, https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/activities/do-i-need-an-approval/mining/, accessed 2 December 2019. 110 Ibid. 21 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 commercial fishing sector with 200 commercial fishing licences, 190 registered fishing vessels and annual harvests averaging 5500 tonnes111.
When seismic surveys were conducted in the Timor Reef Fishery’s most productive areas during 2007, commercial fishers moved to less productive areas where they had to increase effort but caught fewer fish112. A Curtin University follow-up study of the effect of seismic surveys on goldband snapper (a fishery target) was inconclusive. In 2011, Rob Fish of the Northern Territory Seafood Council called for a ban on seismic surveys until more research was conducted: ‘We have proven drops in fish catches from previous surveys, where fisheries have now actually been through the data and can demonstrate that our catch rates have dropped’113.
Commercially targeted fish, such as black jewfish and goldband snapper, are both overfished in the Darwin region114 and would be unable to swim as fast as a seismic survey vessel to avoid the noise. Each year the black jewfish aggregates to spawn and could be vulnerable to seismic noise at this time. 8.2 Western Australia In 2017, commercial fishers and scientists in Western Australia were calling for greater research into the effects of seismic surveys after NOPSEMA rejected an application by Spectrum Geo Pty Ltd on environmental and consultation grounds. Commercial fisher Jimmy Money said in an interview with ABC Pilbara: ‘In 2011 we were significantly hit with seismic survey activities all over our fishery. That’s what really hurt us because it covered most of our area of fishing’115.
He added that before the seismic survey his catch was 700kg per day, whereas afterwards it dropped to 300kg per day and took five years to recover. The body representing commercial fishers in Western Australia, the Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC), expressed concern about the lack of consultation and said: ‘We really only have just started to scratch the surface on the actual impact of seismic activity in relation to fish species and seafood in general’116.
But in May of 2017, NOPSEMA approved the company’s revised and resubmitted application for the Cygnus Southwest Marine Seismic Survey, which was to be conducted across a smaller area than in the first application.
The pearl fishery in Western Australia is also concerned about seismic surveys. Pearling began in north-west Australia as a wild-catch fishery but is now predominantly aquaculture-based. However, wild silverlip pearl oysters, the world’s largest and rarest, are still harvested there (the only place in the world with a wild catch117), especially off the Eighty Mile Beach near Broome where ‘up to 80 per cent of the Australian pearling industry’ is supported118.
James Paspaley, director of the Paspaley Group, Australia’s largest pearl producer, was quoted in a WA Today article as saying: ‘the industry underpinned the past, as well as the future, of Kimberley communities’ and ‘the potential … … impact of the oil and gas industry was of great concern and despite a lack of rigorous scientific data, the federal environmental regulator continued to allow seismic testing with “air cannons” on the seabeds sustaining the pearling industry. It seems reckless and illogical that a demonstrably destructive and highly
111 Northern Territory Government, ‘About the NT commercial fishing industry’,
The fishers’ concerns about the impacts of seismic noise and potential drilling and pipeline construction have driven the development of the ‘North West Shoals to Shore’ research program, a collaboration between the fishing industry, the oil and gas sector and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). The three-year project began in 2017 and is: ‘investigating the long and short-term impacts of marine noise from the petroleum industry on pearl oysters and fish. The studies are also measuring the quality and amount of noise pollution produced by the seismic surveys and vessel activity to produce real-world information about the impacts’ 120.
8.3 South Australia and the Great Australian Bight Conservation groups and the tuna fishing industry had opposed a PGS application for seismic surveys in 2 30,000km of the Great Australian Bight approximately 90 kilometres west of Kangaroo Island. They were 121 relieved by the NOPSEMA rejection of the application ‘multiple times over the past two years’ because the Authority was ‘not reasonably satisfied that the plans meet the acceptance criteria set out in the regulations’122. However, in January 2019, NOPSEMA approved the survey after PGS revised and resubmitted its application.
Conservation groups are concerned about the impact of seismic surveys, and future drilling, on the Bight’s marine life. According to Peter Owen of The Wilderness Society: ‘The Great Australian Bight’s pristine waters are a haven for 36 species of whales and dolphins, including the world’s most important nursery for the endangered southern right whale as well as many humpback, sperm, blue and beak whales. It’s also Australia’s most important sea lion nursery and supports seals, orcas, giant cuttlefish and some of Australia’s most important fisheries’123.
During an earlier seismic survey in 2011 and 2012, there were 12 blue whales and 25 sperm whales observed124.
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry into ‘Oil or gas production in the Great Australian Bight’, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said that: ‘the amount of seismic surveying taking place in and proposed in the GAB could have cumulative impacts on whale species present in the GAB long before the impacts of any oil spill may be felt. An analysis conducted by IFAW in 2015, demonstrated seismic surveys had been approved or were proposed on 67% of biologically important areas for blue whales in Australian waters125.
Soon after NOPSEMA’s approval of the PGS application, a national poll showed that 60% of Australians and 68% of South Australians were opposed to drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight126. The poll also found that 49% of respondents supported the ending of exploration for new coal, gas and oil across Australian waters.
The PGS surveys were scheduled for September to November 2019 but in August 2019, due to inadequate finance, the company put its plans on hold until 2020. The tuna industry was: ‘relieved and sees the postponing of the seismic test in the Great Australian Bight from this year’s autumn until next year as a sign that it will not proceed at all. The controversial tests would destroy the industry is the opinion of the Chief Executive of the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Association, Brian Jeffries.
119 Ibid. 120 AIMS, ‘Marine noise monitoring and impacts’,
The Port Lincoln tuna industry is concerned that the noise from seismic surveys will force southern bluefin tuna to alter their migration route and to move out of range of their fishing boats. The industry’s alarm was first raised when CSIRO’s regular aerial survey to assess southern bluefin tuna stocks (conducted since 1993 but stopped in 2015 due to funding cuts128) reported much lower than expected numbers during seismic surveys conducted from November 2011 to May 2012, suggesting that the tuna had altered their migratory path to avoid the seismic noise. By 2013 the numbers had returned to pre-seismic survey levels but the tuna industry remained concerned: ‘Historically there have been a number of small scale, short term 2D seismic surveys utilising small airguns or other detonation devices in the region. However, it was the first large scale long-term 3D survey in the ultra-deep area of the GAB operating from November 2011 to June 2012 that really alerted us to the detrimental effect these surveys can impart on SBT migration and behaviour’129.
The tuna industry is optimistic that the monitoring costs, stop/go clauses and expert reports to meet the conditions set by NOPSEMA will make the approved PGS seismic survey unviable, although PGS has said it is 130 committed to proceeding in 2020 . But in 2016, BP Australia announced it would not proceed with exploratory drilling in the Bight, saying it ‘would instead focus on projects it can exploit in the short-to-medium term’. The company had been waiting for approval of its exploratory drilling program after two previous knockbacks by NOPSEMA. The Wilderness Society’s National Director, Lyndon Schneiders, said at the time that if: ‘BP with all its experience cannot produce an acceptable drilling plan for NOPSEMA, the remaining companies exploring in the Bight will be wasting their shareholders’ money trying to pursue this folly’131.
But as well as approving the PGS application, NOPSEMA has also approved drilling operations by the Norwegian energy company, Equinor. The risk of oil spills, should any proven resources be extracted, is a major concern for the tuna industry and coastal communities, with the company’s modelling showing ‘a spill could reach the coasts of South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW, threatening Australia’s coastal way of life 132 and livelihoods’ .
Concern about oil and gas sector exploration in the Great Australian Bight are not just held by environment groups and commercial and recreational fishers, as the Victor Harbor Times reported in January 2019: ‘Twelve South Australian local governments who represent over 550,000 residents have so far voiced their concern over oil exploration in the Bight, including the City of Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island and Onkaparinga. Moyne Council and the Surf Coast Shire in Victoria have also expressed concern. Earlier this month, over 400 people protested at Port Campbell in Victoria, opposing oil drilling in the Bight and calling for the local Corangamite council to join in the chorus of local government opposition’133.
Precaution is essential in the decision-making process, especially as a 2013 review of scientific knowledge of the Bight identified a number of gaps and concluded that: ‘Our current knowledge of the [Great Australian Bight] is not sufficiently developed to confidently assess the implications of potential oil and gas production, including potential oil spills, for the region’s diverse marine ecosystems or for its economically important existing marine industries’134.
8.4 Victoria and Tasmania
127 Atuna, ‘Australian seismic testing will destroy tuna industry’,
Sixty years on, a proposed seismic survey in the Otway Basin is being opposed by the Victorian community and commercial fishers. NOPSEMA had approved 3D Oil’s application for a 35-day seismic survey west of King Island during September and October 2019. The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council’s chief executive, John Harrington, said that: ‘Recent [IMAS research] has highlighted that there are greater impacts of seismic [testing] and potentially unknown impacts that research hasn’t discovered yet, that we believe will negatively impact our fisheries both now, in the short-term, but also in the future. I have engaged with a lot of rock lobster and giant crab fishers who hold significant concerns about the impact of seismic activity on larvae of rock lobster in particular’136.
Waters off the Ninety Mile Beach in East Gippsland were the subject of another 3-D seismic survey application, this time submitted by the French company, CCG Services in September 2018. The survey was planned between 2 November 2019 and June 2020 with an operational area of 16,850km . However, NOPSEMA rejected the company’s application due to concerns about the survey’s scale, the company’s consultation and its failure to meet environmental criteria137.
The South East Trawl Fishing Association and the Lakes Entrance Fishermen's Co-op had opposed the application and were relieved by NOPSEMA’s decision. Simon Boag, the Association’s chief executive, said that: ‘the survey as it was planned, would have shut down the fishing industry for months, crippling businesses and leading to a seafood shortage. The magnitude of the survey would have impacted fish supply and prices in Melbourne and Sydney’138.
However, CCG revised and resubmitted its application to cover a smaller area and was approved by NOPSEMA in February 2019. The survey was planned to occur between March 2019 and June 2020139. 8.5 New South Wales Proposals for seismic surveys off the NSW Central Coast generated a fierce community reaction and a split between the Australian and state governments. The NSW Government opposed the federal government’s approval of Asset Energy’s seismic survey application, with the state’s Energy Minister, Don Harwin, saying that NSW had: ‘higher performance standards, wider enforcement powers and tougher penalties for non-compliance – all of which are significant differences between the state onshore and Commonwealth offshore positions’, and that there were ‘very significant issues in relation to marine life’140.
Community groups such as Save our Coast, Stop Seismic Testing Newcastle, Greenpeace and commercial and recreational fishers have campaigned against the surveys, the whale watching industry has had concerns and the Newcastle City Council voted unanimously to oppose them141. Protests, petitions, rallies and submissions have followed, undermining any concept of social licence for the oil and gas sector’s operations.
One NSW commercial fisher reported that whenever seismic surveys occurred, his nets would contain rotting dead fish142. But the 2018 Asset Energy 2D seismic survey off the NSW east coast went ahead, with airguns
135 Earth Resources, ‘History of petroleum exploration in Victoria’,
At the time of the Asset Energy application, the Commonwealth legislation did not require an oil and gas company’s environmental plan to be publicly released before approval was given. But in the wake of the NSW controversy, the federal government amended the legislation to include publication of the plans and a 30-day period for public comment. The new provisions became operational in April 2019.
9. Incidental take of marine life during oil and gas sector activities In the United States the courts have ‘recognized that whales may be harmed by noise from shipping and seismic airguns’145, but oil and gas companies are given permits to allow the incidental take of marine life during their offshore operations. Under the Trump administration this has reached ludicrous proportions: ‘The marine mammal permit for seismic blasting would allow up to 2.1 million instances of harm or injury to marine mammals over five years. An estimated 437,000 to 577,000 individual animals would be affected, including endangered sperm whales, which could be harmed about 11,500 times, or almost 15 harmful blasts for each of the 763 whales in this population. The Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf, which is down to just 33 whales, could be harmed more than 100 times by the seismic blasting’146.
The Australian Department of the Environment and Energy does refer to entanglement/incidental take of whales and dolphins but only to the entanglement in equipment of the fishing industry147. There is no mention of incidental take by the oil and gas sector in NOPSEMA guidelines and regulations. Australian commercial fishers must account for bycatch and not exceed quota but the incidental take of the oil and gas sector is neither assessed nor regulated.
According to Martin Wagner, an attorney from Earthjustice, a US public interest NGO that litigates environmental issues, Australia must, as a signatory to commitments under the Migratory Species Convention: ‘prohibit the “taking” of – which includes “harassing”– endangered migratory species listed in Appendix I to the Convention, as well as the species of albatrosses and petrels listed in Appendix II. Although the Convention does not further define “harassing,” it would strain credibility to argue that harassment would not include the kinds of activities known to be associated with offshore oil drilling’148.
Wagner quotes the Secretariat of the Migratory Species Convention with regards to the underwater noise generated by the oil and gas sector as ‘a form of pollution that affects [migratory species] by degrading habitats and disturbing communication, group cohesion or even leading to injury and mortality, potentially over large distances’149.
The EPBC Act also ‘requires a permit for activities which may kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, or a member of a listed marine species in or on a Commonwealth area’150. Permits will only be issued when among other things, the impact of the activity is incidental and not the purpose of the activity. A review of the Department of Environment and Energy’s website revealed that between 2007 and 2019 there have been 153 applications for permits under the Act but not one has been received from oil and gas sector companies151. The website also lists
143 McCarthy J 2018. 144 Bielby N 2019, ‘Asset Energy says it wants to conduct more seismic testing in search of gas off Newcastle coast soon’, Newcastle Herald, 9 January 2019,
The lack of recognition for incidental take by government and the oil and gas sector more recently has been the result of the federal Environment Minister’s 2014 decision, after a strategic assessment, to establish an ‘approved class of action’ for all oil and gas sector activities: ‘The Minister’s approval means entities seeking to undertake offshore petroleum or greenhouse gas activities in Commonwealth waters in accordance with the Program will no longer need to refer those actions for assessment under the EPBC Act. Under the new arrangements, environmental protection will be examined through the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority’s (NOPSEMA) decision-making processes’153.
As with the class approvals issued to allow mining (including seismic surveys) in Australian Marine Parks, the above class of action fails to recognise the impacts of seismic noise and unfortunately removes the EPBC Act, the federal Department of Environment and Energy and Parks Australia from the assessment process.
10. The limitations of scientific research into seismic survey impacts Although the body of knowledge about the impacts of underwater noise is growing, and that body of knowledge indicates there are various impacts on marine life, the field of research remains limited. In their 2015 review of underwater noise research, Chao Peng, Xinguo Zhao and Guangxu Liu found that: ‘In general, the studies about the impact of noise on marine organisms are mainly on adult fish and mammals, which account for more than 50% and 20% of all the cases reported. Studies showed that anthropogenic noise can cause auditory masking, leading to cochlear damage, changes in individual and social behavior, altered metabolisms, hampered population recruitment, and can subsequently affect the health and service functions of marine ecosystems. However, since different sampling methodologies and unstandarized measurements were used and the effects of noise on marine organisms are dependent on the characteristics of the species and noise investigated, it is difficult to compare the reported results. Moreover, the scarcity of studies carried out with other species and with larval or juvenile individuals severely constrains the present understanding of noise pollution. In addition, further studies are needed to reveal in detail the causes for the detected impacts’154.
Anthony Hawkins, Ann Pembroke and Arthur Popper identified many information gaps in relation to the impact of anthropogenic noise on marine life, including the effects on fish behaviour and physiology and recommended many ways to bridge these gaps155. Rachel Przeslawski and others in 2018 outlined an integrated approach to assessing marine seismic impact and recommended: ‘appropriate environmental baselines and accessible time-series data to account for spatiotemporal variability of environmental and biological parameters that may mask effects, as well as the need for a standardised technique in sound monitoring and equipment calibration to ensure accuracy and comparability among studies’156.
In 2019, Hans Slabbekoorn commented on the limitations of scientific research on airgun noise: ‘Well-replicated and controlled studies do not exist for hearing thresholds and dose–response curves for airgun acoustic exposure. We especially lack insight into behavioural changes for free-ranging fish to actual seismic surveys and on lasting effects of behavioural changes in terms of time and energy budgets, missed feeding or mating opportunities, decreased performance in predator-prey interactions, and chronic stress effects on growth, development and reproduction. We also lack insight into whether any of these effects could have population-level consequences’157.
152 Department of the Environment and Energy, ‘Exemptions’,
There are also gaps related to the cumulative impact of marine seismic activities and the impacts which relate to delayed mortality – there is little known of the long-term impact of initial sublethal effects – as well as displacement from habitat, the disruption of key aspects of species life cycles and what changes occur to the ecology of regions subjected to seismic surveys. 11. The limitations of regulatory oversight of seismic surveys in Australia In the debate about the impacts of seismic noise, concerns have been raised about the rigour, accountability and transparency of the assessment and approval process for seismic surveys. Some of these concerns have been mentioned earlier in this submission.
Until the establishment of NOPSEMA in 2012, the assessment of the environmental plans for seismic surveys were conducted under the provisions of the EPBC Act. Oil and gas sector companies would refer their seismic survey applications under the legislation, the environment department would assess them and determine whether they were to be approved, approved but as a controlled action or not approved. A controlled action requires further assessment under the EPBC Act.
For this submission, a number of EPBC Act assessments from 2011-2013 were reviewed. Each assessment indicated that the survey would not be a controlled action if ‘undertaken in a particular manner’. The assessment focus was the impact of survey noise on whales with the occasional mention of whale sharks and marine turtles.
However, in January 2013, then Environment Minister Tony Burke rejected an application by Apache Energy to conduct a seismic survey within 30 kilometres of Ningaloo Marine Park, indicating that the ‘proposed survey would have occurred in loggerhead turtle habitat at a time when females and hatchlings would be present. The resulting noise, he determined, had a high risk of significant harm to the turtles’159.
Then in May 2013, Minister Burke called in Bight Petroleum’s application for a seismic survey in the Great Australian Bight to be given a full environmental assessment under the EPBC Act. At the time of the call-in, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) chief executive David Byers, said: “This is the first time the government has decided a seismic survey was a controlled action and therefore required a full assessment process under the EPBC. This flies in the face of more than four decades of experience and peer-reviewed research that show no evidence that sound from modern oil and gas exploration activities causes injury to marine species, harm to ecological communities or behavioural effects that would affect the viability of any marine animal population’.
The expanding body of evidence, some of which has been presented in this submission, indicates that seismic surveys can and do impact marine life and cause behavioural changes, proving the APPEA statement by David Byers to be incorrect with regards to impacts on marine species. Unfortunately, there is virtually no research about the impacts on ecological communities, a major gap that must be addressed by governments and the science community.
This assessment process continued until 2014, when sole responsibility for environmental assessment was given to NOPSEMA. The Authority uses a set of criteria (Regulation 10A) to determine whether an application will be accepted, require revision or be rejected. The criteria contain two very vague phrases: ‘impacts and risks of the activity will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) and ‘of an acceptable level’. These are both open to broad interpretation.
As already noted, NOPSEMA did not have to publish environmental plans or allow public comment until legislative amendments came into force in April 2019. These amendments followed community and NSW
158 Carroll A et al 2017, ‘A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 114, (2017) 9–24 159 Arup T 2013, ‘Burke blocks push for Ningaloo oil exploration’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 January 2013,
Although this is a step in the right direction, the 30-day comment period is too short for the community to review highly complex environment plans. There are also no merit appeal rights for NOPSEMA decisions and no federal Minister accountable for the decision making. It is left to the proponent to determine who are relevant persons to engage in consultation (in addition to government departments and marine users near to or in the survey area), which is not true consultation. The proponent is also sent all public comments to review and determine whether they require any adjustments to be made to the environment plan.
There is a lack of clarity around what the concept of ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ means and no opportunity for the full assessment of the environment plans under provisions of the EPBC Act, which has stricter standards pertaining to Matters of National Environmental Significance: Commonwealth Marine Area; Listed Migratory species; Listed threatened species; World Heritage properties; National Heritage places; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry ‘Oil or gas production in the Great Australian Bight’, IFAW commented on the transparency and accountability of the seismic survey assessment process: Since March 2014, offshore petroleum regulator, NOPSEMA, has been the sole assessor and approver of offshore oil and gas activities. There is no longer any ministerial accountability for such decisions and public access and transparency has been lost in the system’ ‘IFAW believes ministerial accountability and full … public access and consultation should be restored to the approvals process. The areas in consideration are large areas of Australia’s marine environment, frequently highly sensitive areas, with high levels of endemic species and important habitat for threatened and iconic animals like whales. It is not appropriate that decisions about proposals that could have catastrophic impacts on such animals are taken without proper political accountability’160.
IFAW also noted that: ‘Australia’s guidelines on seismic testing and whales were produced in 2008 and in IFAW’s view are long overdue for updating as they no longer represent best practice. To strengthen the EPBC process there would need to be reform of the Policy Statement and the establishment of seismic surveys as a Key Threatening process’161.
And: ‘insufficient attention is currently being given by regulators to the impacts of seismic testing, including cumulative impacts and degradation of acoustic habitat by multiple seismic surveys taking place in regions such as the GAB over consecutive years162.
In the light of growing community concerns about the expansion of the oil and gas sector in the Great Australian Bight, then Senator Tim Storer in 2018 tabled an amendment to the EPBC Act with specific reference to the region: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Australian Bight) Bill 2018. However, the comments in his Bill’s explanatory memorandum about the performance of NOPSEMA have relevance beyond the Bight: ‘The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) to require that any application to undertake petroleum or greenhouse gas related activity in the Great Australian Bight that is approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority must be assessed a second time under that Act. The Bill is a response to increasing consensus that NOPSEMA takes insufficient criteria into account when deciding on whether or not to approve petroleum or greenhouse gas related activity in the Bight. For example, insufficient weighting of social, economic and environmental consequences; lack of transparency and accountability; weak powers of review; and poor penalties for non-compliance have been raised as criticisms’163. And: ‘the Bill aims to address those concerns by providing for an additional level of assessment when required, which takes into account broader and more sophisticated criteria under the EPBC Act, whilst retaining initial
160 IFAW 2016. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Senate 2018, ‘Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Australian Bight) Bill 2018’, Tabled by Senator Tim Storer. 29 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019 NOPSEMA assessment. The Bill ensures that ultimate oversight and responsibility for decisions on petroleum activity in the Bight is returned to the Minister’164.
The 2019 review of NOPSEMA’s processes in assessing oil and gas development in the Great Australia Bight conducted by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel found ‘that the regulator’s processes and guidelines appropriately take into account all environmental risks and impacts as required under the regulations. Importantly, through the audit, I have found that NOPSEMA’s practices properly and fully implement its processes and guidelines’165.
The Finkel Review was commissioned by the Federal Government in response to South Australian community concerns about the impacts that oil and gas development would have on the Bight. But Senator Rex Patrick was critical of the review and then went further: ‘The reality is that the Chief Scientist was tasked to look at the wrong question. Had Dr Finkel been asked to conduct a cost benefit analysis of planned drilling the Great Australian Bight, the thing most South Australians are interested in, he would have found that the project doesn’t stack up. ‘All South Australians will be left with is the risk of a spill. With $400M - $500M in annual fisheries/aquaculture and $270M in annual tourism at stake, there is only down side for South Australians. ‘Unfortunately, as the Finkel report points out at page 29, when then Environment Minister Greg Hunt signed a delegation, on 7 February 2014, NOPSEMA has been solely responsible for approving Equinor’s drilling operations. ‘The Minister for Environment has absolved him or herself of responsibility that the company will meet the environmental requirements of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. ‘This means that the only thing that stands between Equinor’s application to proceed and the project going ahead is the non-elected head of NOPSEMA, and that’s not right’166.
12. Recommendations 12.1 Improve scientific knowledge and understanding of seismic survey impacts Establish a national research program on the effects of anthropogenic noise in the marine environment 1. funded by the industry sectors responsible for creating the noise. Prioritise long-term and ecological community-level studies into the environmental effects of seismic 2. noise. Conduct baseline research into the critical habitats, aggregation sites and other sensitive areas of 3. marine animals that could be impacted by seismic noise. Assess the potential cultural, social and economic effects of seismic noise, including impacts on 4. Indigenous cultural values and sacred sites, and commercial and recreational fisheries. Conduct fishery-specific research: monitoring of catch rates and species composition in all areas where 5. seismic surveys overlap with commercially or recreationally important fishing grounds, as a requirement for approval, and funded by the industry sectors responsible for creating the noise. Analyse fishery recruitment in relation to seismic survey activity (predicted and actual) particularly for 6. species with planktonic life stages that have spatial overlap with areas considered prospective for seismic exploration. Support the development and promotion of noise-reducing technologies and alternatives to high-energy 7. seismic surveys. Improve and standardise methodologies for scientific research in the field and laboratory. 8. Assess the cumulative and synergistic effects of noise and other stressors in the marine environment. 9. Conduct research into the long-term impacts of the sublethal effects of seismic noise on marine fauna. 10. Develop an Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap for Australia, similar to that produced by NOAA in the 11. United States. Make information publicly available, including maps of ecologically sensitive areas and fisheries 12. sensitive areas.
12.2 Improve regulatory oversight of seismic surveys in Australia
164 Ibid. 165 Finkel A 2019, Independent audit of NOPSEMA’s consideration of exploration in the Great Australian Bight, Commonwealth of Australia, p.3. 166 Rex Patrick 2019, ‘Chief Scientist’s NOPSEMA audit flawed before it started’,
31 AMCS & SOML Submission to Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: Impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment. December 2019