Beetaloo fracking hearing day 1

Court summary 

When: 10am, Monday June 23  

Where: Federal Court, Sydney (184 Phillip St, Sydney)  

A landmark legal challenge from Lock the Gate to protect Northern Territory water and communities from fracking began its first day of hearing at the Federal Court in Sydney. Environmental Justice Australia is representing Lock the Gate in court.  

Lock the Gate’s Beetaloo fracking case has generated considerable public interest.These legal updates provide factual information about the hearing before the Federal Court that commenced on 23 June 2025.

Day 1 

EJA lawyers are in Court this week representing Lock the Gate Alliance in a significant case concerning fracking in the NT’s Beetaloo Sub-basin.   This case is the first legal challenge to unconventional gas under the expanded “water trigger” in Australia’s national environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). 

The hearing started in the Federal Court on Monday before Justice Owens. Lock the Gate is seeking an injunction against Tamboran B2 Pty Ltd, to prevent it from continuing its Shenandoah South Pilot fracking project without assessment and approval by the federal Environment Minister.  

The ‘water trigger’ provisions in the EPBC Act prohibit a company from taking an ‘action’ if that action involves an unconventional gas development that ‘is likely to have a significant impact on a water resource’. Tamboran has not referred its project for federal assessment. Lock the Gate is arguing that Tamboran is therefore in breach of the EPBC Act because the project is likely to have a significant impact on a water resource (groundwater). Tamboran is arguing that its activities do not meet the threshold of the water trigger. 

Preliminary issues

The hearing commenced with some procedural issues including a request by the respondent, Tamboran B2, for the Court not to live stream the hearing to the public.  Senior Counsel for Tamboran, Edward Muston SC, explained that Tamboran had a ‘general objection’ to the live streaming but that the principal risk it is concerned with is of certain ‘confidential information’ emerging when its lay witness, Tamboran Resources’ Chief Operating Officer, Mr Faron Thibodeaux, is cross-examined later in the hearing.  

Justice Owens determined that the Court will continue to live stream the hearing and that his Honour will consider whether it should be paused during Mr Thibodeaux’s evidence later. 

The parties’ openings

Applicant

Senior Counsel for Lock the Gate, James Hutton SC, started the opening submissions for Lock the Gate’s case. 

Mr Hutton started by outlining the relevant legal framework and ‘what is at stake’ in the context of Tamboran’s Shenandoah South pilot project.  

In taking the Court through the relevant legal framework, Mr Hutton outlined how in December 2023 the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation to extend the ‘water trigger’ laws to all forms of unconventional gas, following the NT’s moratorium on fracking from 2016 to 2023 and an inquiry by an independent committee commissioned by the NT Government. 

Mr Hutton also summarised the activities that Tamboran is undertaking as part of its Shenandoah South pilot project, with reference to key documents that are part of the evidence before the Court, noting that: 

• It has NT government approval authorising, in broad terms, the drilling, hydraulic fracturing and appraisal of 15 new wells  
• The evidence demonstrates it has ‘considerable confidence’ that all 15 of these will ultimately be used to produce commercial quantities of gas 
• The project is the largest unconventional gas project undertaken in the NT and it is likely, if successful, to lead to the first commercial sales of gas extracted from the NT using hydraulic fracturing.  
• In order to access the gas, the gas wells are being drilled through critically important aquifers, most notably the Gum Ridge Aquifer. This aquifer is a key component of a complicated and extensive hydrogeological system which supports groundwater-dependent ecosystems, is relied upon for stock and domestic use in the Territory and is itself intrinsically valuable as a pristine environment that is at present relatively undisturbed by any human activity. 

Mr Hutton briefly identified the legal issues that arise between the parties, including disagreement around what is the ‘action’ that should be considered by the Court in terms of assessing the impact of Tamboran’s activities. In particular, whether it is only the exploration and appraisal phase, or whether the Court should also have regard to the available evidence as to the likelihood that these exploration wells will be used to produce gas for sale.  

Mr Hutton then took the Court through what the expert evidence is likely to indicate around the technical processes of drilling an unconventional shale gas well and hydraulic fracturing, and the underlying geology and hydrogeology of the Beetaloo Basin by reference to some major government reports.  

Finally, Mr Hutton identified for the Court some underlying source documents relied on in the expert evidence already filed with the Court, in anticipation of some objections to the admissibility of evidence raised by both parties.  

Respondent

Senior Counsel for Tamboran B2, Mr Edward Muston SC gave brief opening submissions on behalf of the respondent.  

He noted that there was a substantial agreement between the parties on the interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions, except as to the meaning of ‘action’.  Mr Muston indicated Tamboran’s position is that the ‘action’ that the Court must consider is limited to that which it has approval to do from the NT government, ie exploration and appraisal.   If there is a further production licence granted later, then that would be a separate ‘action’ for consideration under the EPBC Act.  

Regardless, it is the respondent’s position that however ‘action’ is defined – that is, even if the ‘action’ includes production-scale gas development in this part of the Beetaloo – there is no significant impact to a water resource that is likely to be caused.  

Mr Muston then responded to the summary of the technical process for drilling the wells given by Mr Hutton and sought to clarify certain matters around well construction that the respondent anticipates the expert evidence will show about the likelihood of well integrity failure occurring.   

Mr Muston detailed certain “extra layers” of protection in the well design to protect against well integrity failures and other safeguards, and submitted that there would need to be a “series of unfortunate events coalescing” to meet the test in the water trigger.  

Objections to evidence

In the final part of the afternoon, the hearing centred on the parties’ objections to certain parts of the expert evidence that has been filed by the parties.  (Objections to evidence are assertions by one party that material relied on by another party as evidence ought not be received by the Court because it is contrary to certain legal rules aimed at ensuring a fair hearing).