Beetaloo fracking hearing day 3

Court summary

When: 9:30am, Wednesday June 25

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

The hearing of the Gate’s landmark legal challenge protect water resources in the Beetaloo Basin continued today 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.

Day 3

Expert evidence

Today’s proceedings before Justice Owens got underway with the continuation of the expert ‘conclave’ where the four independent expert witnesses in the case gave evidence at the same time. Their evidence in this case covers technical issues relevant to the question the judge needs to decide: whether Tamboran B2’s proposed fracking project is likely to have a significant impact on protected groundwater.  

Concurrent expert evidence is an approach that the Court sometimes uses to allow the experts – who are engaged to assist the Court – more effectively focus on the critical points of disagreement between them, identify or resolve those issues more quickly, and narrow the issues in dispute. 

The four independent experts are: 

• Professor Matthew Currell, hydrogeology expert – engaged by Lock the Gate  

• Mr Andrew Moser, hydrogeology expert – engaged by Tamboran  

• Mr Bernard McCloskey, petroleum engineering expert – engaged by Lock the Gate  

• Mr Bradley Stout, petroleum engineering expert – engaged by Tamboran  

Hydrogeology evidence about the project area 

The first topic covered was an overview of the hydrogeological features of the area where the Shenandoah South project is being undertaken.  This included the hydrogeological experts assisting the Court, under questioning by the barristers, by summarising the location and characteristics of the Gum Ridge aquifer and other relevant geological formations. 

In the course of discussing the relevant hydrogeological features of the area, one of the  areas of disagreement that was identified between the experts was the extent to which particular formations under the ground act as a continuous “aquitard” (or barrier for groundwater) to protect the Gum Ridge aquifer. 

Petroleum engineering evidence 

 The barristers then moved onto questioning the experts about the location and characteristics of the target gas reservoir – in the Valkerri shale formation – and about the process of constructing unconventional gas wells.  

Mr Stout gave extensive and detailed evidence on the complex process of drilling an unconventional gas well for the purposes of hydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’). Mr McCloskey agreed with much of Mr Stout’s evidence about the process of drilling and the purposes of the safeguards included in the well construction.   

However, Mr McCloskey noted that, in his opinion, project reports of some wells Tamboran has already drilled indicate the project area – with large aquifers and the karstic, cavernous, dissolved nature of parts of the shale rock that are being drilled into – is a challenging drilling environment.  Under questioning, Mr McCloskey identified for the Court certain some of the issues he identified, including certain parts of some well bores being not completely cemented and therefore not having a continuous barrier for the well casing.  

Under cross examination from counsel for Lock the Gate Mr Hutton, Mr Stout acknowledged that the documents show there have been challenges encountered by Tamboran in drilling so far, but that these are common challenges that are ‘overcome’ and that appropriate barriers have been achieved in the wells. 

Further hydrogeology evidence

After the lunch break, the two hydrogeology experts returned in a smaller conclave, to give evidence on a number of further issues, including whether discharge of gas from wells is likely to have any impact on water quality in aquifer and if so what impact, and whether stygofauna (which are small aquatic fauna such as bugs, crustaceans and worms that live in groundwater systems) inhabit the Gum Ridge aquifer.   

A key point disagreement between the experts is that Mr Moser does not consider there to be stygofauna in the Gum Ridge aquifer at the location of the project due to the depth of the aquifer at that location, whereas Professor Currell believes the available research indicates the presence of stygofauna there.

Tomorrow 

The hearing will resume at 9.30 am on Thursday 26 June before Justice Owens. Tomorrow is the final day of hearing this week and the evidence should conclude. First up, the expert conclave with all four expert witnesses will continue. It is anticipated that tomorrow’s evidence will address risk of well-integrity failure.  

The parties will then return for a final day of hearing (for closing submissions) in August 2025.