State and commonwealth regulators are assessing Woodside’s proposal before ministers decide
Woodside Energy, Australia’s largest fossil fuel company, plans to develop the Browse gasfield about 300km off the Kimberley coast in Western Australia. A 2023 draft letter from the state’s Environmental Protection Authority said the project could significantly damage Scott Reef’s “exceptional” coral reefs and threaten endangered green turtles and pygmy blue whales. The letter, seen by The Guardian, said Woodside’s plans to protect endangered turtles and blue whales near Scott Reef would be ineffective and that it might be impossible to reduce oil-spill risk to an acceptable level.
Scientists have warned that the Browse development could damage the Scott Reef ecosystem. The reef is home to more than 1,500 species, many of them unique to the area.
The draft was presented to the EPA board for approval in December 2023. In February 2024, two months after the board discussed it, the EPA sent Woodside a letter saying its preliminary view was to reject development of the vast gas reserve. The view was a significant setback for Woodside’s plan to drill more than 50 wells and pipe the gas 1,000km to its ageing North West Shelf export plant beside the world-heritage-listed Murujuga rock art.
Woodside is hoping to win approval next year to develop the Browse basin, whose gas it needs to feed the North West Shelf. The company won approval last year to run the plant until 2070. Browse is Australia’s largest undeveloped source of gas, and The Guardian reported that operating the plant until 2070 could lead to about 88m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere each year after the gas was burned.
EPA staff advised the board that the proposal threatened turtles and whales with serious or irreversible harm, including through oil spills. More generally, the staff said the spill risks warranted invoking the precautionary principle, which meant the EPA should assume the worst possible outcomes could occur. The development is being assessed by both the state and commonwealth EPAs, and environment ministers hold ultimate decision-making power.
Woodside responded to the near-rejection by adding explosive-driven shear rams to its drilling plans, saying the technology could seal a leaking well in seconds. The company said the additions would reduce the “longest credible duration” of a “highly unlikely” well blowout and potential oil spill to about 12 hours. A Woodside spokesperson said a capping stack could stop the oil flow within 16 days if the shear rams failed.
In 2024, Chevron rejected “pyrotechnic shearing” technology for its own wells, describing it as unproven and impossible to test in the field. EPA staff had advised in 2023 that a well leak lasting 13 days could have “irreversible consequences” for Scott Reef.
Sandy Islet, part of Scott Reef and considered critical to the survival of endangered green turtles, faced a threat from seabed subsidence if Woodside extracted gas beneath it, the draft letter said. About 1,000 turtles breed there each year. The EPA described a proposal to top up the sand on the islet as a “high-risk” measure whose success was “likely to be limited.” Woodside said it would drill no wells within 20km of Sandy Islet and restrict gas flaring because bright light can confuse turtles’ navigation.
The draft also said noise, traffic and vessel strikes would have a significant impact on pygmy blue whales migrating between Timor and southern Australia. Scott Reef was the only known whale feeding ground on that migration route, according to the letter. Woodside said it understood that whales fed at the reef but characterized the feeding as opportunistic and the area as less important than the ocean off Perth and other areas farther south. The company also said Scott Reef and Sandy Islet had exceptional environmental value and were important to protect for future generations.
Greenpeace head of nature Glenn Walker said Woodside’s revised plans did not go far enough and relied on “fanciful and unproven technology” to prevent a catastrophic oil spill. He called approval a “major backflip” for the WA and national EPAs and said regulators needed to maintain their independence from corporate and political influence and reject the project. Greenpeace last week nominated Scott Reef for national heritage listing based on its ecological and scientific values.
Only two of the current nine-member WA EPA board were in place when the watchdog told Woodside it was set to reject Browse. One of them was current chair Darren Walsh, who said the assessment had been lengthy because the project was complex and the area sensitive. The EPA would provide a final state report and recommendations to WA environment minister Matthew Swinbourn when the assessment was complete, followed by a three-week public appeal period before a decision.
A national EPA spokesperson said the development was being assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The spokesperson said the “decision clock” had paused while the agency waited for “further technical advice.” Issues under national law include potential effects on pygmy blue whales, green turtles, the marine environment in commonwealth waters and Murujuga rock art near the gas processing facility.
Neither regulatory process has produced a final decision. Woodside is still hoping to win approval next year, but the state report, further national technical advice and the public appeal period all come before environment ministers make the final decision.