New deal could change how FIFO works in the Pilbara
UGL agreed to the short swing as part of an in-principle greenfields deal for Chevron's Gorgon carbon project on Barrow Island, which is expected to start construction of drill centres next month and employ 150 workers at its peak.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
Chevron Energy CEO Mike Wirth rules out additional investment in Australia as the nation struggles to compete globally
The boss of one of the world's largest energy companies has effectively ruled out any additional investment in Australia as the nation struggles to compete globally. Join to watch the full interview live at 11am AEST. Chevron Energy's chairman and CEO Mike Wirth made this stunning revelation on Sky News' Business Weekend as the company celebrates 70 years of operations in Australia. Chevron runs the Gorgon and Wheatstone projects in Western Australia which together deliver about half of the state's gas. Pressed on whether Chevron was looking to further invest in Australia beyond its current projects, Mr Wirth dumped cold water on the prospect. 'We're not looking at anything on the East Coast,' he said. 'In fact, our plans for the foreseeable future would not include expansion of our facilities in Western Australia either. 'We've got backfill fields that will develop over time but given the global competitive dynamics that we talked about earlier, there are likely other places where you're going to see more (gas) trains added before we would add them in Western Australia or on the East Coast.' He also weighed in on the company's struggles with the 'same-work-same-pay' legislation that means some workers at some of its sites could secure pay rises of up to $80,000 per year. 'We'll work with the unions, we'll with the government on these matters, but it is unsettling to investors when changes, significant changes, are made after massive investments are committed,' Mr Wirth said. The Chevron boss' revelation about investment in Australia comes after multiple Australian energy CEOs have lashed out over the various federal and state governments' attitude's towards gas. Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher publicly lambasted Victoria's attitude toward investment earlier this year. 'If I think about Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia – these are very supportive, very development-friendly jurisdictions. Victoria? North Korea. They're different altogether,' Mr Gallagher told an oil and gas conference in Brisbane. Just weeks later, the chief executive of Beach Energy CEO Brett Woods told Sky News that getting gas projects approved in Victoria had 'been a challenge'. 'Victoria still have had quite a negative policy in terms of what the role of gas is in the state,' Mr Woods said on Sky News' Business Weekend. 'I think the recognition now, with industry shutting down and foreclosures and other things, (is) that they need more gas. 'We're ready to help, we just want to get after our projects so we can move them forward.'
The Advertiser
02-08-2025
- The Advertiser
This carbon policy has been a spectacular failure. Let's put this zombie in the ground for good
Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy. Like a reanimated corpse from The Walking Dead, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the boondoggle "technology" that just wont die. As a way for governments to piss public money up the wall, CCS is incredibly effective. On almost every other front, its a spectacular failure. But apparently, Australia is set to be the "sequestration nation". Huzzah! In a perpetual triumph of hope of experience, Resources Minister Madeline King launched a new report on the "economic potential" of CCS this week from Low Emission Technology Australia. A fully networked CCS industry along the east coast could increase economic activity by tens of billions of dollars, according to the best-case scenario outlined in the report summary. The rhetoric is polished; the facts are not. Commercial-scale carbon capture and storage is like teleportation, a nice idea, but a total fantasy. Its perpetually 10 years away from fruition. Lets begin with Australias track record. I am old enough to remember when the coal industry promised commercial-scale CCS would be "bolted on" to our coal-fired power station fleet by 2015 at the latest. What a joke. Australias biggest CCS project is Chevrons Gorgon facility off the WA coast. Derived from the Greek word Gorgos, meaning fierce, terrible and grim, Gorgon is aptly named. It was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year. It has never come close. Its running at about one-third of its capacity and has missed every major milestone. Has any government demanded a refund? Cancelled their permits to operate, granted on the promise 80 per cent of its pollution would be buried? Of course not. Chevron continues to pollute and profit, while CCS somehow still gets spun as a climate solution. Then theres ZeroGena $4.3 billion flagship clean coal project that failed spectacularly, sequestered no carbon, and cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Gorgon and ZeroGen are not the exception. They are the rule. CCS is an abject failure by any measure. Despite this, CCS is being resurrected once again - not because it works, but because it serves a purpose. It gives the fossil fuel industry the social licence to expand. Take the Middle Arm project in Darwin. Sold as sustainable development, its actually a petrochemical hub, reliant on fracking the Beetaloo Basin, greenwashed with the promise of burying its emissions. Or consider Santos Barossa gas project, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects in Australias history and one of the dirtiest gas project in Australia. Governments arent just enabling this - theyre fast-tracking it. While essential environmental protections sit idle, the Albanese government prioritised legislation designed to help Santos bury its carbon abroad. Special special ''sea dumping" legislation allows it to offset pollution by piping it to Timor-Leste for burial. Once again, the public interest is playing second fiddle to fossil fuel profits. This is not a climate policy. Its a fossil fuel expansion plan with a CCS bow on top. The International Energy Agency and IPCC do mention CCS in some scenarios. But what they project is not a green light for governments to bet the house on unicorn technology. Rather, its a sober warning that if everything else fails - renewables, electrification, behaviour change - we might need some CCS. The path to net zero should not be built on desperation fallbacks and marketing strategies. And yet, here we are in 2025, still throwing public money and favourable legislation at a technology that has captured more political spin than carbon dioxide. Whats more, if CCS is so commercially viable, why does it always need billions in subsidies, bespoke legislation, and regulatory carve-outs to survive? Why does the fossil fuel industry only pursue it when it allows them to produce more fossil fuels? While we never seem to have enough money for things people need, like keeping the unemployed above the poverty line, or funding frontline domestic violence services, yet public funding for CCS seems to draw from the same bottomless bucket of money new submarines are funded from. The harsh truth is this: every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar not spent on proven climate solutions or on literally any other services or infrastructure we need. And we need to ask: if CCS was going to work, wouldnt it have done so by now? MORE EBONY BENNETT: Carbon capture and storage a proven failure economically and environmentally is still touted as some miracle solution. But what about what we know does work, and is available now? Are we at least investing in real solutions? Nope. Trees are still the cheapest most natural way to sequester carbon, yet native forest logging is still perfectly legal in some states. The NSW government has seen land-clearing jump by 40 per cent according to latest reports, and its long-promised Great Koala National Park is being logged instead of protected. So, we can all stop pretending governments are actually interested in sequestering carbon. The next decade is critical for climate action. We cant afford to waste it funding PR campaigns dressed up as policy. We already know the best and simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop approving massive expansion of Australias gas and coal industry, most of which is exported overseas. Australias fossil fuel exports are a huge source of pollution. But theyre also driving up the cost of living. Australia Institute research shows the massive expansion of gas exports on the east coast has tripled wholesale gas prices and doubled electricity prices. Stopping Australias massive gas and coal exports makes sense economically and environmentally. And theres no special legislation required. Australia doesnt need more magical thinking. We need policy integrity, political courage and practical solutions. End native forest logging. Stop approving new gas and coal projects. The government could do that starting today. Carbon capture and storage has had its chance and blew it. Twenty years, a billion dollars, and Australia has nothing to show for it. If the fossil fuel industry wants to waste more money on CCS, fine. But not a single cent more of public money need be wasted on this fantasy.
Sydney Morning Herald
23-07-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Taxpayers face $500 million bill to clean up Chevron's WA oil field
Australian taxpayers will have to fork out more than $500 million towards cleaning up a Chevron oil field off the WA coast. In May, Chevron ended around 60 years of oil production on the operation that has run alongside its Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island off the Pilbara coast. It has begun dismantling the 800-plus wells and connecting pipelines spread over the Class A nature reserve. Chevron and partners ExxonMobil and Santos have shipped 335 million barrels of oil and paid about $1 billion in royalties to the federal and WA governments. But the royalty agreement requires governments to refund royalties equal to 40 per cent of clean-up costs in the four years after production ends. That means the higher the clean-up cost is, the more the governments must pay back. In 2022, this masthead obtained a Chevron document estimating the clean-up bill at $2.3 billion, with $1.3 billion of that to be spent in the first four years, putting the state and federal governments on the hook for more than $500 million. The split is 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent WA – as per the royalty income split – with WA to pay $125 million. At the time of the first report, the magnitude of the bill was news to what was then known as the WA Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, which administers the royalty agreement and said it was 'carrying out preliminary calculations'. Now, with decommissioning having begun and the refund imminent, documents obtained by energy news publication Boiling Cold under freedom of information laws, and seen by this masthead, indicated Chevron has told the government the clean-up cost would be even higher than the $2.3 billion reported in 2022. A spokesperson for the department – now the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration – said the official total would not be known until the final royalty returns were submitted, and Chevron's rehabilitation and decommissioning costs were reviewed and audited.
