The Claim
“Spent $10 million per month maintaining an offshore oil rig that is not producing any oil, after private owners profited for many years for costs of only $4 million per month. There is no planned end date for when this plant will be decommissioned to stop these costs.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are substantially accurate, though the framing requires important context.
The Northern Endeavour FPSO
The claim refers to the Northern Endeavour Floating Production Storage and Offtake (FPSO) facility in the Timor Sea [1]. The facility produced oil from the Laminaria and Corallina fields from 1999 to 2019 [2].
The Cost Figures
The Michael West article confirms that:
- Private operator NOGA was paying Upstream Production Solutions (UPS) approximately $4 million per month for production and maintenance when the Northern Endeavour was fully operational [1]
- As of December 2020, the government awarded UPS a 12-month contract worth $130 million for operations and maintenance of the vessel—equating to more than $10 million per month [1]
- By November 2020, Australian taxpayers had already spent approximately $80 million keeping the vessel in "lighthouse mode" (minimal safe operations without production) since February 2020 [1]
These figures are accurate and documented in the original article.
Timeline and Production Status
The claim correctly notes the facility was "not producing any oil" [1]. The facility was ordered to cease production by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) in July 2019 following a series of failed safety inspections [1]. NOGA, the private operator, was put into liquidation by its primary secured creditor in February 2020 [1].
Missing Context
However, the claim omits several critical contextual factors that significantly change the understanding of this situation:
Why the Government Was Forced to Intervene
The claim presents the government spending as a simple "gift" to Woodside, but the actual sequence of events was:
Woodside sold the platform with significant liability loopholes [1]. In 2015, Woodside sold the aging Northern Endeavour to NOGA through a share buyout structure that exploited a loophole in National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) rules [1].
NOGA lacked experience and failed [1]. NOGA had no experience in offshore oil and gas extraction when it took over, and the facility subsequently failed multiple safety inspections [1].
Private operator went into liquidation [1]. With production halted and unable to remain financially viable, NOGA was placed into liquidation by its secured creditor in February 2020 [1].
Government faced a choice between bad options [1]. With no one willing to buy the faulty vessel, regulators had to decide: either taxpayers would maintain the vessel temporarily, or it would be abandoned and create environmental and safety hazards [1].
The Decommissioning Decision
The claim states "there is no planned end date for when this plant will be decommissioned," but this is outdated by the time of writing. The Michael West article was published December 29, 2020, and actually reports that on December 14 of that year, DISER made "a timely decision to decommission" Northern Endeavour [1]. The December 23 contract was explicitly "in preparation for a disconnection and removal of the FPSO" [1].
According to the government's December 2020 announcement, decommissioning was to proceed—the 12-month $130 million contract was preparation work for that process, not indefinite maintenance [3].
Alternative Proposals Overlooked by the Article
NOGA director Angus Karoll proposed an alternative to the government's decommissioning plan: his company and a new financial backer (MTC Ltd) claimed they could:
- Pay creditors 50-100 cents on the dollar
- Set aside funds for decommissioning
- Restart production at 10,000 barrels per day
- Potentially extend operations 8 more years based on 24 million remaining barrels estimated in the field [1]
This proposal was not pursued by the government, though the article presents it as an overlooked cost-saving alternative.
Source Credibility Assessment
Michael West Media is rated by Media Bias/Fact Check as having:
- Left Bias (-6.5 rating): "Moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection"
- Mostly Factual (3.3 rating): "Reporting is evidence-based and well-sourced, though coverage is often one-sided"
- High Credibility: Despite the partisan framing [4]
The MBFC assessment notes that MWM "consistently focuses on exposing corporate misconduct, government cronyism, and progressive critiques of fossil fuels" and that "investigations often rely on verifiable data, such as AusTender records and legal opinions, but they consistently emphasize systemic corruption, corporate greed" from a progressive standpoint [4].
In this specific case, the article's factual claims about costs and timelines are verifiable and accurate, but the framing emphasizes government waste and corporate favoritism while de-emphasizing the constrained circumstances that forced government intervention.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government Australia oil platform taxpayer liability abandonment cleanup Timor Sea"
Finding: No direct equivalent from Labor's 1983-2013 period was found in available searches. However, this reflects a structural issue rather than a partisan one: offshore oil and gas decommissioning has become an increasingly significant liability issue across governments as the industry matures [5]. The Northern Endeavour situation is primarily a product of:
- Woodside's 2015 decision to sell the platform with liability loopholes (occurred under Coalition government but initiated by the private company's choice)
- NOGA's 2019-2020 failure (under Coalition government)
- The maturing offshore industry - a long-term challenge not unique to any government
The decommissioning framework itself has been evolving with bipartisan support. In April 2021, the government announced enhanced decommissioning frameworks following a comprehensive review [5], and these frameworks are designed to prevent future situations like Northern Endeavour.
Balanced Perspective
Legitimate criticisms of the government's handling:
The 2015 loophole: Woodside's ability to offload the aging platform through regulatory loopholes represents a regulatory failure [1]. The government could have been more stringent in vetting the structural sale.
The cost increase: Paying $10 million per month versus a private operator's $4 million per month represents a significant cost increase to taxpayers, though this reflects the different circumstances (full operations vs. minimal safe maintenance) [1].
Decommissioning timeline uncertainty at time of article: When the Michael West article was published (December 29, 2020), the decommissioning decision had only been made days earlier (December 14), and there was legitimate uncertainty about how long the process would take [1].
No production alternative pursued: The government rejected NOGA's alternative proposal to restart production, accepting decommissioning costs instead of potential revenue from continued oil extraction [1].
However, the government's position:
Safety came first: The facility had failed multiple safety inspections [1]. Restarting production would have required significant remediation work and carried environmental and safety risks.
Limited leverage: With NOGA in liquidation and no other buyers, the government had limited options [1]. The choice was effectively between: (a) temporary maintenance while decommissioning is prepared, or (b) abandonment with environmental/safety consequences.
Decommissioning was announced promptly: Rather than indefinitely maintaining the platform at taxpayer expense, the government committed to decommissioning within a defined timeframe (the 12-month preparation contract) [1].
Part of broader policy shift: The 2021 legislative changes were designed to prevent future companies from escaping decommissioning liability, placing the burden on current and future operators rather than taxpayers [5].
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition or Australia. Offshore oil and gas decommissioning liability is a global industry challenge as aging infrastructure reaches end-of-life [5]. The issue here was that Woodside successfully transferred liability before the regulatory framework was tightened, and subsequent operators failed to manage the asset.
PARTIALLY TRUE
7.0
out of 10
/ TRUE BUT LACKS CONTEXT
The core factual claims are accurate—the government did spend $10 million per month maintaining the facility after private operators paid $4 million per month for full production. However, the claim that "there is no planned end date for when this plant will be decommissioned" was already outdated when the article was published (decommissioning was announced December 14, 2020, article published December 29, 2020).
More importantly, the claim omits the constrained circumstances that forced government intervention: the platform had become unsafe, the private operator failed and went into liquidation, and the government was forced to choose between temporary maintenance during decommissioning or abandonment with environmental/safety consequences. The underlying issue—that Woodside successfully transferred liability through regulatory loopholes—is a genuine policy failure, but the framing as a simple "gift to Woodside" misrepresents the sequence of events and constraints the government faced.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
/ TRUE BUT LACKS CONTEXT
The core factual claims are accurate—the government did spend $10 million per month maintaining the facility after private operators paid $4 million per month for full production. However, the claim that "there is no planned end date for when this plant will be decommissioned" was already outdated when the article was published (decommissioning was announced December 14, 2020, article published December 29, 2020).
More importantly, the claim omits the constrained circumstances that forced government intervention: the platform had become unsafe, the private operator failed and went into liquidation, and the government was forced to choose between temporary maintenance during decommissioning or abandonment with environmental/safety consequences. The underlying issue—that Woodside successfully transferred liability through regulatory loopholes—is a genuine policy failure, but the framing as a simple "gift to Woodside" misrepresents the sequence of events and constraints the government faced.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
The Pitts: Government gifts Woodside $130 million Christmas present
With most in holiday mode, the Government has gifted a $130 million Christmas present to Woodside to clean up its Northern Endeavour mess
Michael West -
2
Northern Endeavour
Wikipedia -
3
Decommissioning the Northern Endeavour
Industry Gov
-
4
Michael West Media - Bias and Credibility
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
Media Bias/Fact Check -
5
Offshore oil and gas asset decommissioning
ACCR's report on decommissioning risks creating uncertainty around operators' plans and final costs.
ACCR
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.