Western Australia’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has raised significant concerns over Woodside Energy’s proposed gas drilling project in the Browse Basin, warning that it could cause considerable damage to vulnerable marine ecosystems, including endangered turtles and blue whales near Scott Reef. The project, which involves drilling more than 50 wells roughly 300 kilometers off the Kimberley coast, faces increasing scrutiny after a draft EPA letter issued in 2023 questioned the viability of Woodside’s environmental safeguards.

Scott Reef, an ecologically unique coral system home to over 1,500 species, is at the center of the controversy. The draft letter, prepared by EPA staff and presented to the authority’s board in late 2023, indicated that Woodside’s plans to protect the reef and nearby Sandy Islet—critical for endangered green turtles—were inadequate. It highlighted risks including habitat destruction due to seabed subsidence from gas extraction, potential oil spills, and disturbances to pygmy blue whales that feed along the whales’ migration route between Timor and southern Australia.

Following the EPA board’s endorsement of the draft advice, the EPA formally communicated in February 2024 its preliminary position to reject the development, marking a significant obstacle for Woodside. The company needs the Browse Basin’s gas to supply its North West Shelf processing plant, which was approved last year to operate until 2070. The new gasfield is seen as essential for the facility’s continued operation but would contribute an estimated 88 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually post-combustion.

Key concerns noted in the EPA’s letter included the risk of an oil well blowout and the likelihood of serious or irreversible environmental harm. Staff recommended applying the precautionary principle, assuming worst-case scenarios could occur. To address these risks, Woodside announced additions to its safety protocols, including the installation of explosive-driven shear rams designed to seal a leaking well within seconds, aiming to limit a potential blowout duration to approximately 12 hours. However, some industry players, such as Chevron, have expressed skepticism about the reliability of such technology, deeming it unproven and untestable in real conditions.

Woodside also pledged to limit drilling within 20 kilometers of Sandy Islet and reduce gas flaring to minimize light pollution that could disrupt turtle navigation. Despite these measures, the EPA’s draft described measures to replenish the islet’s sand—a key turtle breeding site—as high-risk with limited chances of success.

The company acknowledged the exceptional environmental value of Scott Reef and Sandy Islet, emphasizing its intention to protect these areas for future generations. However, it downplayed the significance of Scott Reef as a whale feeding ground, describing whale presence as opportunistic and less critical than other southern Australian oceanic areas.

Environmental groups remain unconvinced. Greenpeace Australia called Woodside’s risk mitigation strategies “fanciful and unproven” and urged regulators to reject the project, highlighting the recent nomination of Scott Reef for national heritage listing due to its ecological importance.

With regulatory assessments ongoing, the WA EPA board, which has undergone substantial changes since the initial review, said it expects to finalize its report with recommendations to Environment Minister Matthew Swinbourn shortly. A public appeal period will follow before a decision is issued.

At the federal level, the national EPA is also reviewing the proposal under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, considering impacts on protected species and cultural heritage, including the nearby Murujuga rock art. The federal agency has temporarily paused the statutory decision deadline pending further technical advice.