News

Woodside a step closer to North West Shelf gas approval

Written by Allen Newton | May 22, 2025 2:00:00 PM

THE PATH appears to have been cleared for environment minister Murray Watt to approve Woodside’s North West Shelf gas extension with his rejection of environmental groups’ call for a delay to the decision.

Geoff Bice, WA campaign lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, responded to the refusal of the North West Shelf reconsideration request.

Greenpeace Australia and the Conservation Council of WA had sought the delay of a decision by Mr Watts, who has promised an answer on the 50-year extension of the Browse gas field development by 31 May.

The two environmental groups had argued Woodside’s plans to build a carbon capture and storage facility should be considered together with the whole proposal, a request Mr Watts denied.

"We are deeply disappointed the impacts to Scott Reef and the threatened species that call it home will not be considered by the Minister in regards to Woodside's proposal to extend the lifespan of its North West Shelf project,” Mr Bice said. 

“The primary purpose of Woodside's North West Shelf extension is to process gas from the Browse gas field underneath Scott Reef — the Minister should be looking at these gas mega projects as a whole, rather than broken into arbitrary pieces.

"The North West Shelf facility is one of Australia’s dirtiest and most polluting fossil fuel projects — the decision to refuse Greenpeace's reconsideration request brings Woodside one step closer towards drilling for dirty gas at Scott Reef. 

"If we are serious about tackling climate pollution and protecting nature, we should be closing down polluting fossil fuel facilities when they come to their end of life, not extending them to allow for new gas fields to open. Greenpeace and our supporters will continue fighting to protect Scott Reef from Woodside's destructive plans." Mr Watt concluded there would be no significant damage done to listed threatened species and his department felt Greenpeace’s request for reconsideration did not demonstrate that damage was likely.