Major Australian Gas Project Extended Until 2070: What It Means!!

 

Major Australian Gas Project Extended Until 2070: What It Means

By [deepugoud]
Published on www.deepu1.com

In a major decision that has sparked both relief in the industry and outrage from environmental and Indigenous rights advocates, the Australian government has approved an extension of the life of the North West Shelf (NWS) gas project until 2070. Operated by Woodside Energy in Western Australia, the NWS facility is the country’s largest and oldest liquified natural gas (LNG) plant. What was originally slated to wind down around 2030 has now been given a 40-year extension — with strong caveats, fierce criticisms, and far-reaching implications.

This article explores the background, what the extension involves, the arguments for and against, the climate and heritage considerations, the legal and policy framework, and what this means for Australia’s energy future and climate goals.

---

What Has Been Decided

• Project extended to 2070: The federal Environment Minister, Murray Watt, has granted environmental approval for the North West Shelf gas processing plant to operate through to 2070. The Guardian+3ABC+3OilPrice.com+3

• No expansion of physical footprint: The extension does not involve building new major facilities. Rather, it prolongs operations of existing infrastructure in Karratha. ABC+2OilPrice.com+2

• Strict environmental conditions: A list of conditions has been imposed, especially focused on air emissions, heritage protection, and monitoring. These include reductions in emissions (particularly nitrogen oxide), and protections for the nearby Murujuga rock art complex. The Guardian+3OilPrice.com+3ABC+3

• Approval after long review: The proposal has been under assessment for six to seven years, involving state and federal environmental review, public and community submissions, and appeals. ABC+2Offshore Energy+2

---

Why the Extension Was Sought

Energy security and transition

• The plant supplies large amounts of gas domestically in Western Australia (WA) and also exports LNG globally. Proponents argue that for WA’s energy transition — especially as coal‐fired power stations retire — the availability of “firming” gas supply is critical. Gas plants can help back up intermittent renewable power sources. ABC+2ABC+2

• Continuation of the NWS facility is seen as necessary by its operators (Woodside and its joint venture partners) to maintain jobs, investor confidence, and economic returns. OilPrice.com+2ABC+2

Economic and export considerations

• The North West Shelf project has significant export infrastructure and contracts already in place. Extending operations supports existing contracts, enables potential development of nearby gas fields (e.g. the Browse Basin), and provides long-term revenues to governments via taxes and royalties. Invezz+2ABC+2

• The decision was defended in part on economic grounds: continuity in operations avoids the costs of abrupt closure, stranded assets, and loss of export market share. ABC+2OilPrice.com+2

---

What Critics Argue

Climate goals and emissions

• Net-zero by 2050 vs operating until 2070: Critics say allowing such a large fossil fuel facility to operate for another 40 years undermines Australia's goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. ABC+2Reuters+2

• Greenhouse gas emissions over lifetime: The potential cumulative emissions (including downstream emissions when the gas is burned elsewhere) are worryingly large. Somnulle environmental groups have described the decision as setting up a “carbon bomb.” Reuters+1

Cultural heritage and Indigenous concerns

• The facility sits near the Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula) area, which is home to ancient Indigenous rock art (petroglyphs), some tens of thousands of years old. Advocates and Traditional Owners raised concerns that industrial operations, especially emissions (air pollution, nitrogen oxides, etc.), can degrade or damage this heritage. ABC+2The Guardian+2

• Some critics argue the protections offered are partial or insufficient, especially given that some forms of damage (via emissions) are not fully accounted for under heritage law. The Guardian+1

Legal, regulatory, and moral questions

• Under current Australian environmental law (notably EPBC Act), climate impacts of fossil fuel export projects are not required to be weighed as a deciding factor in approval. Critics see this as a gap or loophole that allows high emissions projects to gain approvals without full accountability. ABC+1

• Some international attention: Pacific Island nations such as Vanuatu have expressed alarm, saying that decisions like this impact not just Australia but contribute to climate change that threatens low-lying island states. The Australian

---

Conditions Imposed and Safeguards

To offset some of the concerns, the approval carries conditions. Some of the key ones:

• Emissions reductions: The project must reduce certain emissions over time. For example, cuts in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are mandated. OilPrice.com+1

• Monitoring and reporting: Ongoing monitoring of emissions and environmental impacts, including heritage areas, is required. Continuous monitoring systems may be part of the conditions. News.com.au+1

• Heritage protection: Measures to protect Murujuga rock art, including limits or controls on operations that could cause atmospheric or other types of pollution that degrade the art. The Guardian+1

However, it is important to note that some critics say these safeguards may not fully offset the risks, especially if climate targets elsewhere slip or emissions elsewhere (scope 3 emissions) are not regulated. ABC+1

---

Policy, Legal, and Political Implications

Australia’s climate commitments

• Australia has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 under its international and domestic climate policy. Allowing a large fossil fuel facility to operate until 2070 creates tension: can other sectors decarbonise rapidly enough to offset the emissions from this project? Many argue this makes the net-zero goal harder. ABC+1

• The decision highlights gaps in environmental regulation, particularly where climate impacts are not directly part of the approval calculus under current laws (EPBC). Some in government acknowledge this and have proposed reforms. ABC+1

Energy transition and reliability

• The justification for extending the plant includes providing reliable supply during the transition from coal to renewables. With coal plants due to close in WA (e.g. Collie in 2027), gas is seen by some as a necessary bridge. ABC+1

• Critics argue that doubling down on fossil gas infrastructure may lock in high emissions, discourage investment in clean energy, and create stranded asset risk if future climate policy tightens.

Indigenous rights and heritage law

• The Murujuga rock art is a powerful symbol of Indigenous heritage. The partial protection under the extension decision has been seen as a compromise that still leaves open risk to those cultural sites. The Guardian+1

• There are calls for stronger protections, and possibly legal challenges, asserting that heritage laws and environmental laws need to better protect both Indigenous heritage and environmental and climate values.

Political fallout

• Within Australia: Divisions between industry, unions and those who see economic or energy security interests, vs environmental NGOs, progressive political forces, Indigenous groups, and concerned citizens.

• Internationally: Australia’s credibility with climate action partners, especially Pacific Island nations, may be impacted. Decisions like this are watched carefully by those who see fossil fuel expansion as a threat to global climate stability. The Australian+1

---

What It All Adds Up To: Impacts and Forecasts

• Greenhouse gas emissions over decades: The extension could lead to large cumulative emissions over 40+ years of continued operation. Even with emissions controls, the burning of gas (domestically or overseas) produces CO₂. This will contribute to global greenhouse gas loads. ABC+1

• Lock-in effect: Infrastructure, supply chains, export contracts, and workforce investments made now assume long-term operations. This can make it harder to pivot to cleaner energy sources down the line.

• Economic benefits vs environmental costs: Jobs, tax and royalty revenues, export earnings, and energy stability for WA are positives. But there are risk of reputational costs, climate liability, environmental degradation (air, heritage sites, possibly local ecosystems).

---

Alternatives & What Could Have Been

• Accelerated renewable deployment: Solar, wind, battery storage, perhaps hydrogen, could be scaled more quickly if sufficient policy support and investment are in place.

• Stricter regulatory frameworks: Including making climate impacts a required part of environmental approvals, stronger heritage protection, better accounting of scope 3 emissions.

• Earlier retirement or phase-down: Instead of committing to full operation until 2070, a gradual winding-down plan could have been considered, with safeguards to manage workers, communities, and economic impacts.

• Investment in carbon capture, storage, and emission mitigation: If gas is to remain part of the energy mix for a while, ensuring technology and operational best practices reduce emissions as much as possible.

---

What This Means Going Forward

1. For Woodside & Industry: Greater operational certainty, continued export potential, but also increased scrutiny. Compliance with environmental/heritage conditions will be important, and the company may face legal or public pressure.

2. For Government: Must balance energy security, economic interests, and climate/heritage obligations. Reforms to environmental law will likely be more strongly demanded.

3. For Indigenous Communities: The protection of heritage sites like Murujuga will remain central. There may be continued contention, legal action, and negotiations to ensure real protection.

4. For Environmental Groups and Climate Advocates: The decision becomes a focal point for advocacy, potentially legal challenges, and calls for more ambitious climate action.

5. For the Australian Public and Future Generations: Raises questions about what commitments we make now that impact the climate in 2040-2070, and whether the trade-offs being made are fair and sustainable.

---

Is This Compatible with Net-Zero by 2050?

This is one of the most pressing questions arising from the decision. There are a few key considerations:

• Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions from the facility (extraction, processing, on-site operations) are directly under regulatory influence. The imposed conditions aim to reduce those.

• Scope 3 emissions (when the gas is burned elsewhere, e.g. overseas or in other parts of Australia) are not currently regulated in Australia under environmental impact assessment law. These are large, and critics say ignoring them undermines climate commitments. ABC+1

• To reconcile operating a large gas plant until 2070 with net-zero by 2050, Australia would need very deep decarbonization in other sectors, large deployment of carbon offsets or carbon capture & storage, and possibly reductions in export use of fossil fuels. Critics argue these are uncertain or risky assumptions.

---

Broader Global & Geopolitical Context

• Many countries are under pressure to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, particularly LNG and natural gas, given concerns over climate change. Australia’s role as a large LNG exporter means its policies have global implications.

• Demand for gas, especially in Asia, remains strong; projects like the NWS are part of global supply chains. This creates tension between market opportunity and climate responsibility.

• International law and norms are evolving: recent decisions, court rulings, and advisory opinions (e.g. from the International Court of Justice) emphasize states’ obligations to reduce emissions and address climate change. The Australian

---

Conclusion

The extension of Australia’s largest LNG facility, the North West Shelf project, until 2070 is a landmark decision. It reflects the tension between competing imperatives: energy security, economic benefit, jobs, and export earnings on one hand; climate ambition, heritage protection, and environmental sustainability on the other.

While the government has sought to justify the decision through imposed environmental conditions and argued that the facility’s continued operation will aid the energy transition, critics are unconvinced that those measures are enough to reconcile with Australia’s climate goals and obligations—in particular net-zero by 2050.

The coming years will tell whether the safeguards hold up, whether alternative energy sources can scale sufficiently, whether legal frameworks are strengthened, and whether Australia’s climate commitments remain credible domestically and internationally.

#NorthWestShelf #Woodside #GasExtension #EnergySecurity #ClimateAction #NetZero2050 #IndigenousHeritage #Murujuga #EnvironmentalJustice #AustraliaEnergyPolicy #LNG #Gas vsRenewables