Beetaloo fracking case closing submissions

Court summary

When: 10:15am, Thursday August 14

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

The hearing for Lock the Gate’s landmark legal challenge to protect water resources in the Beetaloo Basin heard final submissions in the Federal Court in Sydney. 

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. 

Closing submissions

Over four days of hearing in June, the Court heard extensive evidence about Tamboran B2’s Shenandoah South Pilot project, the hydrogeological features of the Beetaloo Sub-Basin, and the technical process and risks involved in drilling unconventional gas wells.   

On Thursday, August 14, the parties returned to Court to make closing legal submissions on whether that evidence shows the legal test is met for the “water trigger” in our national environment laws to apply to this project: That is, whether the project is likely to have a significant impact on water resources. 

Barristers for the applicant, Lock the Gate, and for the respondent, Tamboran B2 Pty Ltd, each addressed his Honour Justice Owens of the Federal Court on why their arguments should be accepted in this case. 

In summary, Lock the Gate is arguing that the Shenandoah South project is likely to have a significant impact on groundwater resources, and therefore that the water trigger should be applied.  It is asking the Court to grant an injunction (a prohibitive court order) to prevent the Shenandoah South project from continuing until it is assessed and approved under national environmental law. 

Tamboran B2, on the other hand, argues that the project will not have a likely significant impact on groundwater and the water trigger test is not met, and therefore it does not need to refer its project for federal assessment.  

On this fifth and final day of hearing, the parties each made submissions on: 

• The scope of the project (or ‘action’) that the Court should be assessing for its impact on water 

• The likelihood that the unconventional gas wells of the project will fail 

• Whether a well integrity failure would result in a significant impact on groundwater. 

Scope of the 'action'

As part of this case, the Court is tasked with determining what is the ‘action’ – that is, what are current and proposed activities of Tamboran B2 that make up the project? – in order to assess its likely impact on groundwater.   

James Hutton SC, senior counsel for Lock the Gate, submitted that the Court must not only consider the gas exploration and appraisal activities that are already  approved by the NT Government under a Environment Management Plan (EMP) for a five year period.  Rather, Lock the Gate argues that the EPBC Act would require the Court to consider of all activities that are ‘proposed’ by the proponent – including having regard to the evidence heard in the case about the intention and expectation that the 15 exploration wells will be converted into production wells and supplemented by more wells.  

For Tamboran B2, Edward Muston SC submitted that the case before the Court is actually more confined, that the Court is only permitted to consider what is the likely impact of the project over the five year period of the EMP approved by the NT Government. Mr Muston acknowledged that to ignore what might happen after the five years “might seem artificial at one level and perhaps for the purpose of the [EPBC Act]”, but that is what Tamboran B2 says is the case before the Court.    

Likelihood of a well integrity failure 

The submissions on well integrity focused on the expert evidence of the two petroleum engineers who gave evidence in June, and dispute over the statistical likelihood of unconventional gas wells failing.  

For Lock the Gate, Mr Hutton submitted that there were “methodological problems” with the evidence from the engineering expert engaged by Tamboran B2, Mr Bradley Stout.  Mr Hutton also argued that it would not be correct to take a “engineering common sense” approach that assumes the well design and technology used will limit the risk, because this ignores the available research and evidence given in this case demonstrating that well integrity failures do occur in comparable situations. 

For Tamboran B2, Mr Muston took the Court through evidence about the design of the project’s wells and the nature of well failure that would have to occur to pose threat to the aquifer. He submitted that the Court must have regard to the reality that there has to be an identified pathway for gas to find its way into the aquifer which is, in Tamboran B2’s submission, highly unlikely.   Mr Muston also made submissions questioning the reliability of statistical analysis conducted by the engineering expert engaged by Lock the Gate, Mr Bernard McCloskey. 

Impact on groundwater  

The parties each made submissions on issues relevant to whether – if there was a well integrity failure – this would result in a likely significant impact on groundwater. These submissions centred on points of disagreement between the hydrogeologist expert witnesses, including contamination pathways and whether the Court could be satisfied as to the likely presence of stygofauna (which are small aquatic fauna such as bugs, crustaceans and worms that live in groundwater systems) in the aquifer at the project site.  

Next steps for the case 

His Honour Justice Owens has reserved judgment in this case, which means the Court will deliver a decision and reasons for that decision at a later date (likely in the next few months).