An Ancient Rock Art Site Is Under Threat as Australia Extends the Life of a Gas Plant
The Australian government recently extended the life of a liquified natural gas project near a 50,000-year-old rock art site in a remote area of the country, prompting an archaeologist to raise alarms about additional environmental damage.
On May 28, Australia's Environment Minister Murray Watt conditionally approved a request by Woodside Energy to extend the life of its North West Shelf gas plant for four more decades until 2070. The conditional approval followed a six-year review 'dogged by delays, appeals and backlash from green groups,' according to Reuters, and the project's existing approval was set to expire in 2030.
More from Robb Report
Heaven Hill Just Added a New Bourbon to Its Unicorn Old Fitzgerald Whiskey Brand
Some of America's Top Chefs Will Be Cooking at This Year's Citymeals on Wheels' Tasting Event
McLaren's New Supercar Is an Ode to Its Historic 1995 Win at Le Mans
The North West shelf gas plant is located on the Burrup Peninsula (also called Murujuga), an area on the remote Western coast of the country where an estimated one million petroglyphs are also located.
University of Western Australia archaeology professor Benjamin Smith noted the site's images includes the world's first depictions of human faces and Murujula is unique for how many items of ancient rock art are located in one place.
'Just to put it in context, the oldest rock art in Europe is some 34,000 years old,' he told The Art Newspaper, noting that pollutants from the plant extension will put all of the petroglyphs at 'grave risk'.
Reuters also reported that Watt said the approval of project extension was subject to strict conditions, 'particularly relating to the impact of air emissions levels', and the impact of emissions on the Murujuga rock art was considered as part of the government's assessment process.
'I have ensured that adequate protection for the rock art is central to my proposed decision,' Watt said.
Woodside Energy was given 10 days by Watt to respond to confidential conditions on air quality and cultural heritage management before the environmental minister would make his final decision on the requested extension for the project.
Smith told The Art Newspaper that until those conditions are known, the archaeology professor will 'keep up the pressure' on the newly re-elected Labor government of Anthony Albanese.
'As a scientist, I'd like to see those conditions be strict; we need to ensure that the operations don't continue to damage the rock art,' Smith told The Art Newspaper. 'The first time we'll see those conditions is when they're made public and by that point it's too late (to change them).'
In 2023, ecological concerns about the North West Shelf gas project on the Murujuga rock art prompted one activist to spray paint Woodside's logo onto an artwork on display at the Art Museum of Western Australia in Perth. Joana Veronika Partyka pled guilty to criminally damaging the painting by Frederick McCubbin, but then fought a charge of counter-terrorism after claiming her personal belongings were raided by authorities after she had declined to give access to her electronic devices. She had pled not guilty to failing to adhere to an order to allow access to her data.
Best of Robb Report
The 10 Priciest Neighborhoods in America (And How They Got to Be That Way)
In Pictures: Most Expensive Properties
Click here to read the full article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump suggests terminating Musk's US government contracts, subsidies
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that he may terminate U.S. government contracts and subsidies given to Elon Musk's companies, as the public feud between the two men escalates over a tax and spending bill. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump said in a Truth Social post. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump budget bill would kill subsidies that made home solar mainstream
By Nichola Groom (Reuters) -A last-minute tweak to the Republican budget bill passed by Congress last month would immediately end subsidies for solar leasing companies that help make rooftop systems affordable to homeowners, likely leading to a massive drop in the pace of installations, according to industry representatives. President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," now being taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate, would eliminate a 30% tax credit for solar leasing companies that charge homeowners a monthly fee for panels - one of numerous cuts directed at clean energy subsidies passed by former President Joe Biden. That provision, inserted shortly before the bill passed the House of Representatives on May 22, risks stifling a sector that buys American-made equipment, employs thousands of people and relieves strain on the grid, according to industry backers. "That's one of the harsher components of the one big, beautiful bill currently," said Gabe Rubio, a principal in the business incentives and tax credits practice at professional services firm BDO. Tax credits for homeowners who own their own rooftop systems would also be eliminated. The changes could result in as much as 40% less residential solar capacity being installed over the next five years, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Solar companies are lobbying the Senate to make changes to the bill before it becomes law. "America's home solar and storage industry is a powerful economic growth engine," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said in a statement. "Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to advance the administration's energy independence agenda by amending this bill to keep American energy prices low and create well-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs." Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal the clean energy tax credits in Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, arguing they are expensive, unnecessary and harmful to business. Republican backers of the bill say the subsidy cuts would free up billions of dollars for other priorities. More than 5 million U.S. homes have solar panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. LAST MINUTE CHANGE An earlier version of the bill had protected the credit for leased solar systems, but fiscal hawks including Representative Chip Roy of Texas have said publicly that they pressed for deeper cuts to clean energy credits at the eleventh hour. Roy's office did not respond to a request for comment. Solar leasing was pioneered two decades ago by companies including Sunrun and SolarCity, which is now owned by Elon Musk's company Tesla, and quickly became the primary way home solar panels were financed. Under the model, solar installers partner with financiers that own the rooftop panels and offset their federal tax bills by claiming the credit. Homeowners either pay a monthly fixed fee to lease the equipment or pay for the electricity the system generates under a power purchase agreement (PPA). In what some analysts have said could be a loophole, the House bill directly references leased systems but does not mention PPAs. About 44% of residential systems sold today are under such arrangements, according to EnergySage, an online solar marketplace. Solar installers say undermining the subsidies could have a ripple effect on U.S. manufacturers that supply them. Freedom Forever, a top privately-held installer based in Temecula, California, said in two years it has gone from using no U.S.-made equipment to now sourcing 85% of it from American facilities. That is thanks to another IRA subsidy that provides bonus 10% tax credits for using American-made equipment. "The administration wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States, and that's what our industry has been doing for the last two to three years," Freedom Forever CEO Brett Bouchy said.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.