Woodside oil spill plan under fire as approval decision nears

A coalition of experts, fishers, and conservationists has intensified its opposition to Woodside's proposed $30 billion Browse gas project, arguing the company has significantly downplayed the risks associated with potential oil spills off the Kimberley coast. The project, intended to supply gas for 800,000 homes, is currently under review by Western Australia's Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

“

dramatically understating the risks of an oil spill off the pristine Kimberley coast.

Woodside revised its proposal last year after an initial rejection, relocating a drill center away from sensitive turtle nesting sites and reducing the project's overall footprint. A key focus of these adjustments was minimizing the likelihood of a spill, which Woodside's initial report acknowledged could have "catastrophic" consequences. Company simulations indicated a potential blowout could release nearly 900,000 barrels of condensate over 77 days, a volume roughly 30 times larger than the 2009 Montara spill, one of Australia's worst marine oil disasters.

Such a prolonged spill could impact numerous reefs, marine parks, and Indigenous Protected Areas, with potential "severe and potentially irreversible" effects extending to Indonesia and Timor-Leste, and harming marine life. However, Woodside maintains that a major catastrophe is "highly unlikely," presenting a more "credible" scenario of a 12-hour leak releasing about 5,600 barrels of condensate near Scott Reef.

“

catastrophic

Environmental consultant Rick Steiner expressed skepticism about Woodside's containment strategies, pointing to the failure of similar technologies during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. He argued that the company's "maximum credible spill scenario" exemplifies the industry's tendency to "dramatically understate risks" and "overstate their response capabilities." Steiner emphasized the necessity of "doubly redundant backup systems," noting that even with such measures, systems can still fail.

“

severe and potentially irreversible

These concerns are echoed by Chevron Australia, a competitor, which has previously dismissed pyrotechnic shear rams, a technology Woodside plans to use, as un-testable in practice due to their single-use nature.

“

highly unlikely