Oil spill would help coastal towns, says BP

Coastal towns would benefit from an oil spill in the pristine Great Australian Bight because the cleanup would boost their economies, energy giant BP has claimed as part of its controversial bid to drill in the sensitive marine zone.

BP, which has since withdrawn the drilling plan, also told a federal government agency that a diesel spill would be considered ‘‘socially acceptable’’.

The company made the statements in an environment plan submitted to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority in March 2016.

BP had been seeking to drill two wells off the South Australian coast, raising fears of an environmental disaster akin to BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws, first published by London-based website Climate Home News, show that the government authority had identified serious shortcomings with BPs environment plan.

In a letter to BP, the authority said a number of statements should be removed or supported by analysis. They included BP’s claim that ‘‘in most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies’’.

BP also claimed it had not identified any social impacts arising from the event of a diesel spill, and ‘‘since there are no unresolved stakeholder concerns . . . BP interprets this event acceptable’’.

The authority said not all stakeholders had been provided with the oil pollution emergency plan, and there could be impacts on recreation, tourism and the fishing industry.

The authority also found that the submission required ‘‘significant modification’’ to comply with environment laws, and identified a litany of environmental impacts that had not adequately been addressed.

For example, while BP noted evidence that southern right whales migrated through the drilling area, and sperm whales were observed during a seismic survey, it did not to be socially adequately evaluate ‘‘potential ecological consequences’’ on whale migration and feeding in response to sound emissions from drilling activity.

Potential oil spill impacts on wildlife species identified by BP ‘‘may underestimate the level of impact to large local and regional populations’’ and the scale of response required, the authority said.

It also said BP had failed to adequately evaluate the socioeconomic impact of an oil well blowout, including the effect on tourism of a reduced presence of whales and dolphins.

A BP spokeswoman said the correspondence was part of an ongoing process and ‘‘included a range of feedback that BP was working to address’’.

‘‘Given the project did not proceed, work on the draft environment plan ceased, so the correspondence in question doesn’t represent the final views of BP or

In most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies. BP environment plan

the regulator,’’ she said.

BP dumped the plans in October 2016. It has transferred two offshore leases to Statoil and cancelled to others. Several oil and gas companies retain titles in the bight.

Greenpeace senior campaigner Nathaniel Pelle said the documents also showed that Statoil’s proposed offshore drilling site ‘‘could spread 40 million litres of sludge along a 750km stretch of coastline, anywhere from Western Australia to Tasmania and NSW’’.

The Australian manager of Norway-based Statoil, JacquesEtienne Michel, said the company was working on its environmental plan and ‘‘will only undertake drilling activity if we can do it safely’’.

Statoil had collaborated with CSIRO to study the local environment, and its exploration project was designed to protect the interests of fishing, aquaculture and tourism operators, he said.