Petroleum Wells in Stokes Bay Mangrove System

By Environs Kimberley

Issue: Failure in planning and assessment and in rehabilitation requirements for oil and gas

Location: Stokes Bay in King Sound, West Kimberley

Impact: Threat of leaking oil and gas infrastructure in National Heritage listed King Sound.

King Sound is a globally significant and pristine natural landscape renowned for its exceptional environmental and heritage values. It is characterised by large tidal influences, a unique tropical climate, diverse mangrove species, and complex coastal habitats (Brocx & Semeniuk, 2012). Home to many diverse species, King Sound’s tidal flats are especially critical for migratory shorebirds, providing essential feeding and roosting sites. ccl The region’s wilderness remains largely unmodified, distinguishing it from similar systems globally. As a result, it plays a pivotal role in supporting biodiversity and maintaining ecological balance on an international scale and it has been recognised as part of the West Kimberley National Heritage Listing.

From 1984 to 2007, Esso, ANZOIL and ARC Energy drilled three oil and gas wells along with causeways and well pads in and around the marshes and mangrove systems at Stokes Bay and King Sound in the Kimberley. Two of the wells never produced, while production at one was short lived.

New owners have since purchased the tenements and wells, but maintenance has been poor, with DMPE (formerly Department of Energy, Mines, Industry, Regulation and Safety) confirming through a rare site inspection in 2021 that the well infrastructure is deteriorating and threatening the local environment. Overall, DMPE identified 44 breaches of environmental conditions and nine key findings including corrosion at the three well heads, a blow-out preventer in the wrong position, hydrocarbon staining, and waste left on site. Most importantly, it was recommended that Departmental ‘Directions Notices’ should be issued to the companies to enforce action. The directions notices were never issued as recommended in 2021, but, eventually in February 2025, a single directions notice was issued for one of the wells with no explanation to why the other notices were never issued (DMIRS WA, 2021).

One of the causeways is currently inaccessible due to erosion and the whole area is inaccessible throughout the wet season and on certain tides (DMIRS WA, 2021). These long-disused wells could potentially leak into the National Heritage listed King Sound or vent methane into the atmosphere. If a well blowout was to occur there would be great difficulty in getting the required heavy machinery to the well site in a timely manner to avoid an environmental disaster.

Despite being located in an internationally significant mangrove system (Cresswell & Semeniuk, 2011), none of these projects were assessed through the EP Act 1986, with assessment being undertaken in-house by DMPE without referral to the EPA, no public comment period and without a full release of environmental plans.

The WA Government has since failed to ensure adequate decommissioning and rehabilitation of the sites. There are also no industry funds or bonds to ensure clean-up of the mess should any of the companies go into liquidation. As it is an oil and gas project, it does not fall into the Mining Rehabilitation Fund.

The owner of the tenements and wells, Gulliver Productions, has since been sold to a little-known overseas company, with a sale price estimated to be $400,000. After Parliamentary Questions, an official estimate of the decommissioning and rehabilitation cost is still unknown, but it is understood to be many millions of dollars’ worth of work, given the remote and inaccessible site.

This case represents a failure in planning and assessment and in rehabilitation requirements for onshore petroleum companies. These kinds of projects clearly require assessment by the WA EPA with public input and should be mandated with enforceable conditions and decommissioning and rehabilitation requirements. The current system where DPME purports to carry out environmental assessments is not adequate. Stronger adherence to guidelines with clear thresholds for determining the level of assessment for referred projects is required.

With most of King Sound included in the National Heritage listing as part of the West Kimberley National Heritage area, pristine environments such as these should be included in no-go zones that inform environmental and land use planning and assessments. If there were no-go areas for sensitive ecosystems like the King Sound mangroves then the proposal could’ve been rejected from the beginning and adjacent areas protected.

The whole King Sound bioregion must be given marine park or similar status and protected from any future oil and gas exploration. Sections of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 should be applied to permanently remove all petroleum tenements from the King Sound bioregion.

Recommendations

Require a decommissioning bond to be held prior to approval of a project, with strict decommissioning standards, monitoring and enforcement
stablish stronger guidelines to ensure that projects with similar impacts are assessed by the EPA at the highest level with Public Environmental Review • Bioregional planning for the Kimberley to identify no-go zones and protected areas, including for marine parks.

(See Recommendation 2 under 'Adopt a Bioregional Planning Framework', Recommendation 15 under 'Strengthen Environmental Impact Assessments', and Recommendation 27 under 'Strengthen Mine Rehabilitation and Environmental Compliance').

Citations

Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V. (2012). ’King sound and the tide-dominated delta of the Fitzroy river: Their geoheritage values.’ Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 94(2), 151-160

DMIRS WA (2021). (Released under FOI.) ’West Kora-1 well site, West Kora tank farm, Point Torment-1 well site, and stokes Bay-1 well site petroleum and environmental compliance inspection report.

Cresswell, I., & Semeniuk, V. (2011). ’Mangroves of the Kimberley coast: Ecological patterns in a tropical Ria coast setting.’ Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 94(2), 213-237