Inquiry findings Dr Hatton said when the WA government announced its scientific inquiry last year, there was a widely held view that preceding national and international inquiries made one in WA unnecessary. But there was a unique and distinctive picture of WA's risks and concerns and how those risks might be further reduced. There was also new science that made other inquiries somewhat dated. The panel was asked to recommend a scientific approach to regulating fracking and limit its scope to the technical risks of shattering rock to get gas. Instead, the panel took a "wider view" of the risks and impacts a fracking industry would have on the environment and communities.

"It was our view given the nature of the concerns ... that this broader interpretation would be of greater value and more respectful to the community and the West Australian government," Dr Hatton said. The inquiry involved 12 months of reviews and analaysis and resulted in a highly technical, detailed and lengthy report that needed to be read in full, he said. Dr Hatton presents his findings. Credit:Nathan Hondros. The consultation had attracted massive interest, attendance at public meetings, 9500 pro-forma submissions and 400 written submissions. These complemented the panel's assessment of diverse scientific literature that was both complex and at times contested. The report was "silent" on whether the moratorium should be lifted; that was the government’s decision, Dr Hatton said.

But it made 91 findings and 44 recommendations, which Dr Hatton emphasised were independent views based solely on an unbiased review of the available evidence. The principal recommendation was for an enforceable code of practice aimed at further reducing the risks, most of which were associated with the integrity of the wells used and depended on the location and scale of development. Strict adherence to global design and construction standards would limit risk to a low level. The panel had considered plausible scenarios of development, for how big projects might become and where they would be. The state already had systems to assess risks to animals and vegetation, but the current process was limited to considering individual wells and not of potential oil and gas field development. The panel therefore recommended development proposals for any gas fields go to the federal government for assessment.

The panel concluded that water availability was not a significant issue and access was already well regulated. The risk to water quality emphasised the importance of long-term integrity of wells but risks of below ground-pathways for contaminants was generally low, if well integrity was maintained. Premier Mark McGowan alongside Environment Minister Stephen Dawson. Credit:Nathan Hondros. Chemical spills and wastewater spills above ground were a greater risk, and a degree of precaution was justified to protect human health. A number of recommendations were made regarding this. They recommended wells be at least 2 kilometres from human drinking water sources and towns. Links between air pollution and health impacts had not been definitely proved but the link was plausible enough that caution was warranted and the panel recommended full monitoring systems.

“The report presents estimated volumes of greenhouse gas for plausible development scenarios over their full life cycle and considers these estimates in the context of Australia’s emissions and commitments," Dr Hatton said. “Again, the scale of those impacts depends on how big the industry is. The recommendations that we have included in the report extend to baseline measurement of greenhouse gas levels, monitoring for leaks and their remedy over the full development lifecycle of the gas field, a requirement ... to limit methane released ... and appropriate offsetting of emissions.” The report also recommended industry contribute to a fund for "remediation of any legacy issues" and that "penalties for any environmental issues should increase as an incentive to compliance." The Premier's announcement Premier Mark McGowan said that as a responsible government he needed to respect what the science told him and also take into account what people expected of their government.

He said to impose a blanket ban would undermine the state’s reputation as a safe place to invest and he could not turn his back on industry. He believed the government had struck the right balance to support economic development, the environment and landowners. The government accepted all 44 recommendations of the report. The iconic Dampier Peninsula, national parks and other icons would be off-limits and beyond these areas, fracking would be restricted to existing petroleum titles representing just two per cent of the state. That meant 98 per cent of Western Australia would be "frack-free". This map represents existing and potential future petroleum leases in the Kimberley's Canning Basin. Credit:Department of Mines , Industry Regulation and Safety.

Farmers, landowners and traditional owners would, for the first time, have the right to say yes or no to gas production on their land. "This is a fair and reasonable approach," he said. The industry would not enjoy a royalties discount; the royalty rate for unconventional oil and gas would increase to 10 per cent, the same rate that applied to conventional petroleum production. The government would use any royalties to support new renewable energy projects via a special Clean Energy Future Fund with a $9 million seed allocation. Dissent in the ranks

Three unions attended a recent anti-fracking rally in Perth: United Voice, including chief executive Carolyn Smith who is also President of WA Labor; the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union; and the Maritime Union of Australia. The McGowan government also faces potential revolt from backbenchers; insiders told The Australian the issue had divided caucus and there was deep anger. Kimberley and Swan Hills MPs Josie Farrer and Jessica Shaw have already publicly broken ranks to call for a ban. But the Premier said he was confident of support from his back bench. The protest campaign

The protest campaign is backed by Australian scientists including WA Scientist of the Year Peter Newman, 2003 Australian of the Year Fiona Stanley, former premier Carmen Lawrence, former CSIRO atmospheric research team head Graeme Pearman and Climate Council chief Tim Flannery. It is also backed by public figures including Paul Kelly, Jimmy Barnes, John Butler, Peter Garret, Missy Higgins, Tim Winton and Janet Holmes a Court. Weekend reports the Premier was about to open up the Kimberley to fracking prompted a strong reaction on Monday. In Broome, more than 250 people turned out with just 24 hours’ notice to protest at Entrance Point beach. There were further demonstrations on Monday night at Parliament House and in Geraldton and Exmouth. Four Kimberley Aboriginal groups are now officially opposed to fracking on traditional lands including Nyul Nyul, Nyikina Mangala and Ngurrara, though the Yungngora group is pro-fracking because it wants jobs for at-risk young people.

The Conservation Council of WA says that the government has broken the promise made in its 2016 election platform document "to analyse the full life-cycle of greenhouse gas emissions prior to any fracking activity". CCWA president Piers Verstegen said the inquiry considered only direct greenhouse gas emissions from fracking, not counting pollution from burning the gas for energy, and therefore that it had likely underestimated the real climate impacts by up to 90 per cent. “Pollution from conventional LNG production in WA is already preventing Australia from meeting Paris Agreement pollution targets," he said. The Wilderness Society WA state director Kit Sainsbury said the 2 per cent of WA where fracking would be allowed represented almost 5.2 million hectares of land. “The fracking ban is being upheld in the South West but why allow this to occur in other areas of the state? Are they less valuable?

“It alienates those who are now going to be affected directly by fracking and those who are not. “We are deeply concerned about how this will impact the communities where fracking is permitted and upon our wider commitments to meet the Paris agreement levels due to the expected carbon emissions." Industry response The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA said the government should have lifted the ban from the South West, Peel and Perth. Chief executive Paul Everingham said the announcement was a missed opportunity to tap into WA’s potentially massive shale and tight gas assets and provide the WA community with a greater domestic gas supply.