Part 2 of 2: How to Make Your Voice Count in Offshore Oil & Gas Consultations

by | Feb 23, 2026 | Consultation Spotlight

Public consultation is a cornerstone of Australia’s offshore oil and gas projects, giving advocacy groups, community members, and industry stakeholders the opportunity to influence environmental planning. However, not all feedback carries the same weight—its impact depends on its specificity, validity, and relevance.

Understanding Relevant Persons

Under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations (Australian Government, 2023), titleholders must consult with relevant persons—those whose functions, interests, or activities may be affected by the specific project. If you, your business, or your organisation are a relevant person, you may participate in the consultation process to share and receive relevant information, provide feedback for assessment, and, where appropriate, inform changes to the project plan to reduce or manage potential impacts. Sharing information about how others may be affected can help identify and direct consultation efforts, but ultimately, the consultation process relates to those directly impacted (NOPSEMA Consultation Guidelines).

Examples of functions, interests or activities that may make you a relevant person.

Category

Example (Who)

Why it can be relevant

Cultural & Spiritual

Registered Native Title holders / RNTBCs / PBCs within or adjacent to the project area; Traditional Owners with sea-country responsibilities in the area

Cultural heritage, spiritual connections, and customary practices tied to the marine area could be affected by timing, access, or potential impacts.

Commercial Fishing

License holders targeting species within/near the operational area or EMBA (e.g., tuna longliners, trap and line operators)

Potential displacement, interaction with gear, safety zones, stock or habitat impacts, or timing conflicts with peak fishing seasons.

Recreational & Charter

Skippers running dive, whale-watching, or fishing charters in the affected area

Navigational exclusions, schedule disruptions, client safety/access.

Aquaculture

Operators with leases near the proposed area (e.g., shellfish, finfish)

Water quality risks, biosecurity concerns, interference with farm infrastructure, changes to marine traffic.

Ports & Marine Logistics

Port authorities, pilotage providers, vessel traffic services

Traffic management, safety zones, anchorage use, emergency response coordination.

Environmental & Conservation

Marine NGOs with active programs tied to the species/area (e.g., turtle, cetacean or seabird conservation in the specific region)

Research programs, data and management insights relevant to local species, habitats, and mitigation effectiveness.

Tourism

Regional tourism bodies or operators whose products depend on the affected marine area (e.g., coastal eco-tours)

Temporary changes to amenity or access that could influence visitor experience.

Community & Representative Bodies

Marine focused community associations adjacent to the operation; representative bodies authorised to speak for their members

Local knowledge about environmental values, usage patterns, or community risks.

Emergency Services & Response

State/territory marine rescue, oil spill response organisations

Interface with emergency preparedness, incident response planning, and resource deployment.

Education and Research Bodies

Universities or research institutes with ongoing projects in the activity footprint (e.g., tagging programs)

Data on species movement, baseline conditions, and cumulative impacts; coordination to avoid interference.

Government Agencies

Fisheries, environment, maritime safety, heritage agencies with statutory roles in the area

Regulatory functions and information relevant to risk assessment, protected matters, and management measures.

 

What if I’m not a Relevant Person?

Even if you don’t fulfill the criteria for relevant persons consultation you can still participate via the Public Comment process. This is a mandated 30-day period, which allows the public to review and provide feedback on proposed activities through the regulator NOPSEMA’s website.

For more information visit NOPSEMA: Have your say

Why Specificity Matters

Government regulators assess Environment Plans (EPs) against strict statutory standards and regulatory frameworks to ensure that proposed activities have adequately identified, assessed, and addressed potential impacts and risks within the project area. They need project-specific, location-based information to evaluate risks and mitigation measures. Emails containing petitions, broad protest statements, or general opposition to fossil fuels fall out of scope because they aren’t about the specific proposed activity and therefore aren’t relevant to be considered in an Environment Plan.

The influence of your submission isn’t determined by numbers; it’s shaped by substance. Regulators value feedback that is detailed, relevant, and backed by information specific to the proposed activity. A single well-informed response by a representative for the petition group can carry far more weight than hundreds of identical petition emails protesting current energy policy.

Examples of out-of-scope feedback:

  • “Stop all offshore drilling in Australia” (industry-wide opposition)
  • “Ban fossil fuels globally” (policy-level advocacy)
  • “Seismic blasting should be banned in our oceans” (broad advocacy, not specific to the proposed survey area or timing)
  • Mass petition emails with identical wording and no reference to your specific function, interest or activity in the Operational Area.

Respectful Dialogue Matters

Consultation works best when discussions remain constructive. Titleholders have obligations to protect employees from aggressive or hostile interactions (NOPSEMA, Psychosocial risk management) and reduce those risks to as low as reasonably practicable within their own company policies and procedures. Confrontational behaviour, including disorderly conduct or threatening language during consultation, is considered hostile and demonstrates no intent to engage in meaningful dialogue. While not all stakeholders will share the same views, all participants should feel safe to express them. Disrupting consultation events can prevent genuinely affected stakeholders from receiving and providing information necessary to inform decision-making and safeguard the environment.

Where Broader Concerns Belong

Concerns about ending fossil fuel use, banning offshore drilling, or opposing seismic surveys entirely are best directed to policymakers and regulators rather than project-level consultations. These forums are designed to shape legislation and energy strategy, where advocacy campaigns can influence decision-making.

Policy contacts for broader issues:

  • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW): epbc.referrals@dcceew.gov.au
  • NOPSEMA General Policy Feedback: feedback@nopsema.gov.au
  • Your Local Federal MP: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members

Your voice matters most when it is specific, informed, and directly relevant to the project under consultation. Targeted feedback ensures offshore projects operate safely, responsibly, and in accordance with Australia’s stringent environmental standards.

 

References

  • Australian Government. (2023). Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023.
  • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). EPBC Act Offshore Petroleum Program.
  • (2025). Guidelines: Consultation in the course of preparing an Environment Plan.
  • (2024). Regulatory Services Charter – Workplace protections and respectful engagement.
  • NOPSEMA, Psychosocial risk management (Guidance Note N‑09000‑GN1958, 10 December 2025).
Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

Vicki is a seasoned professional with 19 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.

Part 1 of 2: Navigating Stakeholder Consultation in Offshore Oil & Gas: Balancing Inclusivity and Relevance

by | Feb 16, 2026 | Consultation Spotlight

Stakeholder consultation is a cornerstone of Australia’s offshore environmental management framework. Under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations, titleholders must consult with all relevant persons—defined as individuals, organisations, or groups whose functions, interests, or activities may be affected by a proposed offshore activity (NOPSEMA, Consultation Guidelines). This obligation ensures transparency, builds trust, and informs the development of Environment Plans (EPs), which are rigorously assessed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) before any activity can proceed.

The Challenge: Volume vs. Relevance

While the intent is clear, meaningful engagement with those potentially impacted, the practical reality is more complex. Titleholders often adopt broad capture approaches, including outreach to environmental NGOs and community groups, to identify potentially affected parties. However, this inclusivity can create a volume-driven imbalance, in which high volumes of general-interest responses overshadow input from those with direct operational or cultural ties to the area.

This imbalance poses two risks:

  • Dilution of critical input from directly affected stakeholders with substantive functions, interests or activities. Personal viewpoints and assumptions being presented as factual and science based.
  • Extended timelines and resource strain, as companies navigate large volumes of feedback that may not materially influence risk management strategies.

Why Triaging Matters

To maintain integrity in the process, some degree of triage is necessary. Prioritising stakeholders with demonstrable functions, interest or activities in the specific area—such as Traditional Owners, commercial fishers, and government agencies—ensures that consultation remains fit for purpose. This approach aligns with recent court interpretations (e.g., Tipakalippa decision, 2022), which emphasise genuine engagement with those whose interests extend beyond general advocacy.

The Role of NGOs and Advocacy

Environmental NGOs play a vital role in raising awareness and promoting ocean health. Their input often reflects broader societal values and can influence policy evolution. However, it’s important to recognise that government assessments of EPs are rigorous, incorporating biodiversity, cultural heritage, and cumulative impact considerations under frameworks like the EPBC Act Program. These statutory processes are sometimes underestimated or dismissed in public discourse, yet they remain central to safeguarding marine ecosystems (NOPSEMA, Environment Plan decision making).

Striking the Balance

Effective consultation is not about limiting voices—it is about prioritising information from those most affected and best placed to inform outcomes.

Titleholders must:

  • Map stakeholder influence and impact early in the planning phase.
  • Assess, validate, and verify the information received.
  • Document transparent criteria for identifying relevant persons.
  • Maintain open channels for broader community input while focusing detailed engagement on those directly affected.

This balanced approach respects inclusivity without compromising the quality of environmental risk management. In an era of heightened scrutiny and climate urgency, getting this right is essential—not just for regulatory compliance, but for sustaining the industry’s social licence to operate.

References

  • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW): EPBC Act Offshore Petroleum Program.
  • NOPSEMA Consultation Guidelines: Consultation and Communication Requirements for Environment Plan (May 2025).
  • NOPSEMA Guidelines: Consultation with Commonwealth agencies with responsibilities in the marine area (Aug 2024).
  • NOPSEMA Guidelines: Environment Plan decision making (Jan 2024).
  • Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 – Australian Government.
  • Tipakalippa v NOPSEMA & Santos [2022] FCAFC 193 – Federal Court of Australia.
    Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

    Vicki is a seasoned professional with 19 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

    Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.

    Advancing Sustainable Seismic Technologies: Minimising Environmental Impact Through Innovation

    by | Nov 17, 2025 | Environment Spotlight, Technology Spotlight

    Seismic surveys are essential for understanding subsurface geological formations, particularly in offshore exploration for oil and gas, and renewables. While concerns exist about their impact on marine life, it’s important to note that seismic surveys have been conducted in Australia’s marine waters for decades—often alongside commercial fishing—with limited evidence of widespread disruption to fisheries operations (Meekan et al., 2021). This coexistence provides useful context for ongoing environmental management.

    The Necessity of Proper Impact Assessment and Mitigation

    Traditional seismic operations employ high-energy sound pulses—typically from airgun arrays—that can affect marine fauna, including whales, dolphins, fish, and invertebrates, by interfering with communication, navigation, and normal behaviours. Peer-reviewed research has demonstrated a range of biological responses, such as startle or avoidance reactions in squid (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012), physiological effects on shellfish (Day et al., 2017; 2019), and increased mortality in plankton within hundreds of metres of the source (McCauley et al., 2017). For fish and other marine organisms, exposure to intense impulsive sounds has been linked to temporary hearing threshold shifts and stress responses (Popper et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007; 2019).

    Recognising these impacts, Australia’s environmental and offshore petroleum regulatory framework mandates detailed impact assessments and mitigation protocols before any seismic survey commences. This is primarily governed by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, administered by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). NOPSEMA’s Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management (2018) provides guidance on evaluating and managing underwater noise impacts. The EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction Between Offshore Seismic Exploration and Whales outlines precautionary measures to minimise acoustic injury to cetaceans.

    At Klarite, we work closely with titleholders and stakeholders to ensure mitigation strategies are aligned with best practice and scientific standards such as NOAA NMFS Technical Guidance (2024) for underwater noise thresholds and IUCN (2016) recommendations for geophysical survey management. Measures include soft-start procedures, exclusion zones where appropriate, the use of marine fauna observers, real-time monitoring, and the adoption of technologies designed to reduce acoustic disturbance.

    Innovations in Seismic Acquisition Technology

    The seismic industry is undergoing a transformation, with new technologies emerging to reduce environmental impacts. Some remain in research and development, while others are now commercially available. These innovations aim to reduce sound intensity, control frequency output, and minimise disruption to marine ecosystems. However, it is important to recognise that every technology comes with trade-offs, and adoption requires a careful assessment of overall environmental effects rather than focusing on a single metric. Below is a summary of key technology types and examples:

    Technology Type

    Examples

    How it differs from standard source arrays

    Commercial Status

    Tuned Pulse Source (TPS)

    Sercel TPS, BluePulse

    A low-frequency broadband marine seismic source that emphasises very low-frequency output (< 3 Hz) and reduces high-frequency energy compared to standard air-gun arrays (Sercel, 2022).

    By shifting output to lower frequencies and reducing unnecessary high-frequency energy, the technology reduces the acoustic footprint and thus lessens potential disturbance to marine fauna (Sercel, 2022).

    Commercially available

    Marine Vibroseis (MV)/ Non-Impulsive Source

    Prototype systems (e.g., Shearwater, industry JIP collaborations)

    Uses mechanical vibration to emit energy gradually, rather than impulsive air gun pulses (Shearwater Geoservices, n.d.).

    Field trials show lower peak pressures and narrower frequency bands, suggesting reduced exposure impacts for marine mammals (Matthews et al., 2020).

    Advanced R&D / Sea trials completed

    Enhanced Pneumatic Source

    Gemini EFS

    Produces a broader, lower-frequency energy spectrum compared with standard airguns.

    By reducing high-frequency emissions and peak sound levels, it potentially lowers auditory risk to marine life (Udengaard et al., 2023; ION 2021).

    Commercially available

    Digital Frequency-Controlled Source

    Teledyne eSource, Bandwidth-Controlled eSource

    An air-gun mechanism modified to digitally control the spectral content of the output, suppressing high-frequency components that overlap with sensitive marine species hearing (Li & Bayly, 2017; Teledyne Marine, n.d.).

    Reduces acoustic energy in higher-frequency bands to which many marine mammals are more sensitive, thereby reducing behavioural and auditory risk (Li & Bayly 2017).

    Commercially available

     

     

    Seabed Sensor Systems

    Ocean Bottom Nodes (OBN)

    Modular nodes deployed to the seabed eliminating need for towed hydrophone streamers (TGS, n.d.; Zhang et al., 2021).

    Eliminates towed streamer arrays, reducing surface vessel movement and flow noise. This may lessen acoustic disturbance and operational interactions in sensitive or shallow environments (TGS, n.d.; Zhang et al., 2021).

    Commercially available

    Coordinated Source Arrays

    Synchronised Source Arrays

    Employs multiple synchronised sources arranged in defined geometry and firing sequence to optimise wavefield control and imaging efficiency.

    This coordination can reduce redundant shots and may lower overall acoustic output (CGG 2020; PGS 2020).

    R&D

    Environmental Impact Trade Offs

    Selecting a seismic technology is not just about implementing the system that reduces one particular impact. Every technology has its trade-offs: while some sources may lower high-frequency sound levels, they can elevate other cause–effect pathways, such as particle motion or low-frequency energy, which may affect different marine species.

    Understanding the broader environmental impacts is essential for informed decision-making, rather than focusing on a single metric. Emerging technologies like marine vibroseis demonstrate potential benefits, such as lower peak sound levels, but their long-term ecological effects, particularly associated with alternative pathways, are not yet well quantified. This uncertainty can be a barrier to adoption, emphasising the importance of continued research, environmental assessment, and a careful evaluation of trade-offs to achieve a reduction in overall environmental impacts.

    This principle is further illustrated in the discussion of pressure-based versus sound-based energy sources below.

    Emerging Considerations: Pressure vs. Sound

    Some technologies, such as MV and vibratory sources, generate controllable acoustic signals through volume displacement of water using a vibrating plate or shell. These pressure-based methods may offer environmental advantages by producing lower acoustic pressure and reduced bandwidth (spectral content) compared to airgun sources. However, few empirical studies have assessed biological responses to marine vibroseis. Matthews et al. (2020) modelled sound fields but noted that further research is needed to understand the biological effects of pressure-based exposure on marine species, particularly invertebrates and early life stages.

    Technology Accessibility

    While seismic source technology has advanced significantly and several next-generation systems are now commercially available—such as Digital Frequency-Controlled Sources (Teledyne eSource), Tuned Pulse Sources (Sercel TPS), and Enhanced Pneumatic Sources (Gemini EFS)—their adoption is not straight-forward. Widespread deployment remains limited, and each technology comes with unique environmental trade-offs that must be considered in context (Li & Bayly, 2017; Sercel, 2022; Udengaard et al., 2024).

    Implementation often requires vessel retrofitting, source-controller compatibility, and operator training (PGS, 2021; CGG, 2020). Similarly, OBN systems offer environmental advantages by eliminating long towed streamers, but their use depends on survey type, water depth, and logistical feasibility (TGS, n.d.; Zhang et al., 2021).

    Titleholders demonstrate commitment to environmental stewardship by assessing trade-offs and costs of implementing technologies wherever practicable. Adaptive management and continuous improvement ensure alignment with NOPSEMA’s expectations for best available technology. As fleet modernisation continues, the availability of advanced source systems is expected to broaden, but until then, operators must balance technological accessibility with achieving the highest practicable environmental outcomes.

     

    The Path Forward: Innovation Meets Responsibility

    The seismic industry continues to evolve through scientific research, technological advancement, and responsible planning. Klarite can support clients with ALARP analysis, a requirement of environmental plans, and help integrate new technologies in ways that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts.

    By embracing innovation alongside careful evaluation and collaboration, seismic exploration can progress sustainably, protecting marine ecosystems while supporting energy development. As technologies advance, so too does our ability to balance exploration with conservation—building a future where responsible resource development and marine protection go hand in hand.

    Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

    Vicki is a seasoned professional with 16 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

    Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.

    References

    • CGG (2020). Source Deghosting for Synchronized Multi-Level Source Streamer Data. Viridien Group.
    • Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2017). Seismic air gun exposure during embryonic development does not affect hatching success or larval behaviour of the spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus). Scientific Reports, 7:689.
    • Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2019). Exposure to seismic air gun signals causes physiological stress in spiny lobsters. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6:472.
    • DEWHA (2008). EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1: Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales.
    • Fewtrell, J., & McCauley, R.D. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64:984–993.
    • IUCN (2016). Effective Planning Strategies for Managing Environmental Risk Associated with Geophysical and Other Imaging Surveys.
    • Li, Z., & Bayly, M. (2017). Quantitative assessment of environmental benefits of bandwidth-controlled marine seismic source technology. 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
    • Matthews, M.R., Ireland, D.S., Zeddies, D.G., Brune, R.H., & Pyć, C.D. (2020). A modeling comparison of potential effects on marine mammals from sounds produced by marine vibroseis and air gun seismic sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(2):985–1001.
    • Meekan, M.G., Speed, C.W., McCauley, R.D., Parsons, M.J.G. (2021). A large scale experiment finds no evidence that a seismic survey impacts a demersal fish fauna.
    • McCauley, R.D. et al. (2017). Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1:0195.
    • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2018). Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0).
    • NOPSEMA (2018). Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management.
    • (2020). Widmaier, M., Tønnessen, R., Oukili, J., Roalkvam, C. “Recent advances with wide-tow multi-sources in marine seismic streamer acquisition and imaging.” FIRST BREAK 38(12).
    • PGS (2021). Sustainability in Seismic: Enabling Low-Emission, High-Performance Acquisition. Technical Note.
    • Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A.D., Fay, R.R., Mann, D.A., Bartol, S.M., Carlson, T.J., et al. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles. NOAA Fisheries Scientific and Technical Report NMFS-OPR-55.
    • Sercel (2022). TPS Broadband Marine Source Technical Brochure. Sercel Group.
    • Shearwater GeoServices. (n.d.). Advanced Seismic Sources – Marine Vibroseis.
    • Southall, B.L. et al. (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4):411–521.
    • Southall, B.L. et al. (2019). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Updated scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 45(2):125–232.
    • Teledyne Marine (n.d.). Calmer Waters: Reducing Sound Exposure to Marine Mammals During Seismic Surveys.
    • TGS, n.d.; Zhang, Y., et al. (2021). A review of OBN processing: challenges and solutions. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 18(4):492–502.
    • Udengaard, M., et al. (2024). An enhanced frequency source for modern marine seismic surveys. 85th EAGE Conference

    Understanding Climate, Energy, and the Role of Scientific Literacy

    by | Aug 10, 2025 | Environment Spotlight

    📌 Published in alignment with National Science Week (9–17 August).

    As Australia celebrates National Science Week, it’s a timely reminder that scientific literacy is a foundation for future innovation. Whether it’s understanding climate change and its factors, managing offshore energy development, or responding to environmental challenges like coastal erosion and biodiversity loss—the ability to critically assess information, understand context, and weigh trade-offs is essential. So, how does this shape what we teach in the classroom?

    Balanced and full-context science communication in education plays a vital role in equipping future engineers, environmental scientists, and policymakers with the skills to approach global challenges with confidence, curiosity, and critical thinking.

    At Klarite, we operate at the intersection of offshore energy development and environmental stewardship. Australia’s energy system is undergoing a significant transition, with renewables playing an increasing role alongside legacy sources like coal and gas. As the mix continues to evolve, the ability to understand environmental impacts, trade-offs, and system-wide dynamics becomes even more important—especially for the next generation.

    Every day, we work with complex data, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and evolving sustainability goals. The ability to communicate science clearly and responsibly—especially to the next generation—starts in the classroom.

    The Importance of Balanced Science Communication in Education

    Climate change is explored across multiple subjects in the Australian Curriculum, including Geography, Earth & Environmental Science, and Earth & Space Science. Students investigate how human activities interact with natural systems, fostering an understanding of environmental processes and sustainability challenges (Source: Australian Curriculum – Science Learning Area).

    At Klarite, we work in environments where informed, evidence-based decisions require the integration of environmental, technical, and social factors. This reflects the importance of presenting environmental science in a way that highlights complexity, trade-offs, and systems thinking skills that are essential as students prepare to engage with real-world sustainability and energy challenges.

    By fostering curiosity, critical thinking, and scientific literacy—science education plays a vital role in preparing the next generation of professionals and innovators who will shape Australia’s clean energy future—making decisions that balance environmental stewardship with community needs and long-term energy goals.

    Why Science Literacy Supports Better Decision-Making

    Scientific literacy extends far beyond the classroom—it’s foundational to informed, thoughtful decision-making across industries like offshore energy, environmental stewardship, public policy, and energy sector consulting. In our work at Klarite, clear and balanced science communication supports our ability to:

    • Facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement and community consultation.
    • Ensure environmental assessments reflect the complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems.
    • Support adaptive management strategies that address both environmental and societal needs.
    • Communicate complex data in a way that builds trust and fosters collaboration.
    • Understand the evolving energy landscape, including the role of diverse energy sources and transitional fuels such as natural gas, to inform balanced environmental and operational decisions.

    Similarly, fostering these same skills in students helps prepare them to become the innovators, critical thinkers, and decision-makers of tomorrow—equipped to navigate the challenges of a changing planet with confidence and curiosity.

    As we reflect on the theme of National Science Week 2025 “Decoding the Universe”, it’s a timely reminder of how essential science literacy is, not only for individual understanding but for the collective decisions that shape Australia’s energy future.

    Conclusion

    National Science Week celebrates how science empowers innovation, problem-solving, and progress. At Klarite, we are proud to support initiatives that foster scientific literacy, helping equip future generations with the curiosity and critical thinking skills needed to address complex challenges.

    While education policy determines what is taught in classrooms, the way science is communicated—whether in schools, industries, or the broader community—should inspire curiosity, encourage thoughtful inquiry, and equip future leaders to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and seek balanced solutions.

    By nurturing these skills, we lay the groundwork for a future generation that can approach Australia’s energy and environmental challenges with clarity, collaboration, and confidence.

     

    Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

    Vicki is a seasoned professional with 16 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

    Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.