Does this actually pencil out when you factor in the reputational damage to the entire Australian resource sector? The public already hates gas companies, and approving this will make every future mining project face even fiercer opposition and higher regulatory costs.

The Deepwater Horizon precedent is damning here. That spill caused over $60 billion in damages and decades of ecological harm, and the Gulf had far more capacity to absorb shocks than Scott Reef does. We know exactly how this movie ends.

What if the government rejects it and Woodside just sues for billions in compensation under trade agreements? Then we lose the reef and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Is anyone thinking about that scenario?

A clear rejection of this project could be the turning point that forces the gas industry to finally clean up its act and invest in genuine green transitions. It sends a market signal that environmental vandalism isn't bankable anymore.

The real tension here is between legitimate economic interests and irreplaceable natural heritage, but both sides lose if we keep talking past each other. A principled 'no' to Scott Reef could be paired with a genuine just-transition package for workers and communities, which is the only way to build lasting consensus.