Woodside's proposed changes to Browse gas development explained as public consultation opens

Australia Broadcast Center

13-05-2025

Woodside Energy and its joint venture partners have been trying to get federal and state environmental approval for the massive $30 billion Browse gas project off WA's Kimberley coast since 2018.
Now the company has asked WA's energy regulator if it can change the proposed project to "reduce the environmental risk".
WA's Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is seeking public input before deciding whether to accept and assess the new proposal.
So what does all this mean?
Woodside says it's the biggest untapped gas reserve in Australia and would produce 11.4 million tonnes of gas each year.
It's slated to begin operations in 2030 and would run for up to 44 years in the Torosa gas field, 425 km offshore from Broome under a large coral reef system in the Browse Basin.
The project is critical for Woodside because it would supply its North West Shelf Karratha Gas Plant, a plant it wants to extend the life of.
But it also has potentially serious impacts on the environment in the Browse Basin, including the ecosystems and corals at Scott Reef, Sandy Islet and its nesting green sea turtle population, as well as migrating pygmy blue whales and many other local species.
Woodside needs WA EPA approval for the parts of the project in state waters.
It needs separate federal approval for those parts in Commonwealth waters.
In February 2024, the state EPA reportedly sent a letter to Woodside with a preliminary view the proposal was "unacceptable".
In March this year, Woodside wrote to the EPA asking to amend the project after "guidance from the EPA".
The company wants five amendments which "are expected to result in lower risk of impact to the Western Australian environment".
It wants to reduce the size of the project's "development envelope" or footprint from around 1,220 square metres to 78 square kilometres.
Woodside said it would no longer include the Scott Reef shallow water habitats or Sandy Islet, but of concern to environmentalists, "there is no change to the area of direct or indirect seabed disturbance estimates".
But it also wants to move drilling away from habitats critical to the survival of green turtles.
And it's proposing further measures to reduce the risk of underwater noise and artificial light harming the green turtles.
Woodside wants to use what it calls "best practice technology" to minimise the risk of a well "blow-out" and spill of natural-gas hydrocarbon liquids during drilling.
It says trials in the Gulf of Mexico showed the technology could reduce the chance of a subsea spill and "immediately stop the flow of hydrocarbons to the environment".
This would reduce the time taken to contain a spill from 77 days to just 12 hours, the company says, reducing the risk of a "blow-out" to "lower than remote".
The Greens think this is completely unbelievable.
WA Premier Roger Cook likes the plan.
"It's a very positive step and it's a sign that Woodside are listening to the concerns of the EPA and the community," he said.
But environmental groups went for the jugular, claiming the changes were tinkering at the edges without reducing the risk to the environment.
WA Greens fossil fuel and climate spokesperson Sophie McNeill told ABC Radio Perth the changes were not significant, accusing the company of "sneaky" and "deceitful" behaviour.
"All they've done is shift a few drilling locations. They haven't changed anything else," Ms McNeill said.
"It poses incredible risks still to the endangered marine life that live there at Scott Reef."
Primarily, she said there was no way Woodside could stop an oil spill in 12 hours, as opposed to 77 days previously.
"We just don't believe it," she said.
Woodside said the amendments "demonstrate our commitment to further avoid and minimise potential environmental impacts from the proposed development."
Public submissions to the EPA on the plan are open for four weeks.
After that, the EPA will decide whether it will accept it.
If it does, it will begin a scientific examination of whether the proposed changes make a significant difference to the environmental risks.
If they don't accept it, it'll be a big blow to Woodside and its partners, which will have to decide whether further changes are warranted.