The Australian government’s recent announcement of a two-week public consultation period regarding Woodside Energy’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) plans for the Browse project has ignited a firestorm of opposition from environmental groups. Set to begin on January 2, this consultation provides a platform for stakeholders to weigh in on whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary for the ambitious project aimed at sequestering CO2 off the coast of Western Australia.
At the heart of the proposal lies the intention to capture a compressed CO2 stream from two floating production storage and offloading units (FPSOs) associated with the Browse to North West Shelf (NWS) Project. Woodside aims to tap into the Brecknock, Calliance, and Torosa natural gas fields, located about 425 kilometers north of Broome. The plan is to inject and permanently sequester up to 270 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd), translating to roughly 14,200 tonnes of CO2 daily, into the Calliance Storage Formation near Scott Reef. This ambitious endeavor is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 53 million tonnes over its lifetime, which is no small feat.
However, the Greens party has taken a strong stance against this initiative, accusing Woodside of attempting to “greenwash” its operations while many Australians are on holiday. “Woodside’s attempts to now use carbon dumping to try and secure approval for the high emissions Browse gas field to be developed at Scott Reef sits in stark contrast to their earlier public admissions,” the party stated. They are demanding an extension of the consultation period and a full environmental assessment, arguing that the risks to endangered marine species are too significant to ignore.
Concerns are not limited to political rhetoric. Greenpeace has revealed documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws that indicate the federal government has already cautioned Woodside about various environmental risks linked to the CCS plans. These risks include CO2 toxicity, potential earthquakes, leakage, and the adverse effects of ongoing seismic blasting on marine ecosystems. Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, has been particularly vocal, labeling CCS as an “expensive distraction” that fossil fuel companies use to mask their emissions.
The crux of the debate revolves around the efficacy and viability of CCS technology. Critics argue that it remains an unproven solution at the scale needed to address the climate crisis effectively. They contend that true progress in reducing emissions requires a fundamental shift in how we generate energy, rather than relying on untested technologies that allow fossil fuel companies to continue their operations with a veneer of sustainability.
On the other side of the aisle, a Woodside spokesperson defended the Browse gas project, asserting that it aligns with the policy frameworks of both the Western Australian and Australian governments, which recognize the essential role of natural gas in the nation’s energy future. This juxtaposition of perspectives highlights a growing tension in the maritime and energy sectors, one that pits immediate economic interests against long-term environmental sustainability.
As this debate unfolds, it will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of both the maritime industry and broader climate policy in Australia. The outcome of the consultation and the subsequent actions taken by Woodside and the government will set a precedent for how carbon capture technologies are perceived and implemented moving forward. In a world increasingly aware of the climate crisis, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
