Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement have increased by 1.1% in 2023, hitting a new record high of 36.8bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), according to the 2023 Global Carbon Budget report by the Global Carbon Project.
The new report finds that the increase in fossil emissions in 2023 has been largely driven by increased emissions in China – without which the global total would have remained approximately flat at 2022 levels.
Total global CO2 emissions – including land use and fossil CO2 – increased by approximately 0.5% in 2023, driven by a combination of a small drop in land-use emissions, but an increase in fossil CO2 emissions.
However, total CO2 emissions remain ever so slightly below the highs set in 2019 and have been relatively flat since 2015.
The 18th edition of the Global Carbon Budget, which is published today, also reveals:
- Global land-use emissions have likely been falling over the past two decades, driven by decreasing rates of deforestation in Brazil and other countries. However, land-use emissions remain highly uncertain and trends should be interpreted with caution.
- Most of the increase in fossil emissions was from coal and oil. Global coal emissions reached a new record high, though oil emissions still remain below pre-pandemic levels. Gas emissions and those from cement and other sources remained relatively unchanged.
- China’s fossil CO2 emissions are estimated to be up 4% this year, while India’s are up 8.2%. US and European Union emissions are expected to fall by 3% and 7.5%, respectively.
- Emissions from international aviation and shipping have grown by an estimated 11.9% in 2023, reflecting a 28% increase in aviation emissions (as the sector continues to recover from pandemic lows) and a 1% increase in shipping emissions.
- Global CO2 concentrations in 2023 set a new record of 419.3 parts per million (ppm), up 2.4ppm from 2022 levels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now 51% above pre-industrial levels.
Global CO2 emissions virtually tie 2019 record
While CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have exceeded pre-pandemic levels over the past two years, total CO2 global emissions – which includes those from land-use change – have remained marginally below 2019’s record of 40.9GtCO2.
In 2023, the global total effectively tied the 2019 record. The central estimate provided by the Global Carbon Budget is 0.1% lower than the prior record, though the large uncertainties – particularly for land-use change emissions – reduces confidence in the relative ranking of the two.
Each year the Global Carbon Budget is estimated to include the latest data as well as improvements to modelling sources and sinks, resulting in some year-to-year revisions to the historical record.
The figure below shows the 2023 (dark blue solid line), 2022 (yellow dotted), 2021 (bright blue dotted) and 2020 (red dotted) global CO2 emissions estimates, along with the uncertainty (shaded area) of the new 2023 budget.
The 2023 figures are quite similar to the 2022 numbers over the past decade, though it shows somewhat higher emissions during the 1980s and 1990s.
Annual total global CO2 emissions – from fossil and land-use change – between 1959 and 2023 for the 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 versions of the Global Carbon Project’s Global Carbon Budget, in billions of tonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2). Shaded area shows the estimated one-sigma uncertainty for the 2023 budget. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Growth in total CO2 emissions has substantially slowed down over the past decade (2013-22), with an average growth of 0.14% per year. This is much lower than the 2.1% per year average growth rate over the previous decade (2003-12) and the longer-term average growth rate of 1.7% between 1959 and 2012.
The continued growth in fossil-fuel emissions has been largely counterbalanced by a slight decline in land-use emissions. However, the uncertainties surrounding land-use emissions remain quite large. As more data is collected there may be upward or downward revisions in the record over the past decade – as seen in both 2021 and 2022 versions of the Global Carbon Budget.
The figure below breaks down global emissions (black line) in the 2023 budget into fossil and (grey) land-use (yellow) components. Fossil CO2 emissions represent the bulk of total global emissions in recent years, accounting for approximately 90% of emissions in 2023 (compared to 10% for land-use). This represents a large change from the first half of the 20th century, when land-use emissions were approximately the same as fossil emissions.
Global fossil emissions include CO2 emitted from burning coal, oil and gas, as well as the production of cement. However, the Global Carbon Budget also subtracts the cement carbonation sink – CO2 slowly absorbed by cement once it is exposed to the air – from fossil emissions in each year to determine total fossil emissions.
Global CO2 emissions separated out into from fossil and land-use change components between 1959 and 2023 from the 2023 Global Carbon Budget. Note that fossil CO2 emissions are inclusive of the cement carbonation sink. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Recent analyses by both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Climate Analytics have suggested that global fossil emissions may peak in 2023, as the growth of clean energy accelerates and fossil fuel use declines.
However, hopes for an imminent peak in global emissions should be tempered by past failed predictions. Back in 2016, there were suggestions that global emissions had peaked and would decline. Similarly, a number of researchers (including one of the authors of this article) estimated that fossil emissions would peak in 2019 in the wake of Covid-19 disruptions. In reality, fossil emissions set new records in both 2022 and 2023.
It is also important to emphasise that stopping the growth of CO2 emissions does not stop CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere or stop the world continuing to warm. For warming to stop, global CO2 emissions need to not only peak, but rapidly fall to net-zero.
Land-use emissions
The Global Carbon Budget estimates that land-use emissions will be 4.1GtCO2 in 2023, down around 5% from 2022 and continuing a small downward trend over the past two decades. However, despite declines in land-use emissions from deforestation, they remain substantially higher than CO2 removals from intentional reforestation and afforestation projects.
The Global Carbon Project now provides a database of land-use emissions by country, though it does not provide country-level emissions through to 2023 yet. The figure below highlights the four countries with the largest land-use emissions in 2022 – Brazil (grey shading), Indonesia (red), the Democratic Republic of Congo (bright blue) and China (yellow) – as well as land-use emissions in the rest of the world (purple).
Annual CO2 emissions from land-use change by major emitting countries and the rest of world from 1959-2022. Note that country-level land-use change emissions are not yet available for 2023. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The decline in global land-use emissions over the past two decades was driven in part by decreasing rates of deforestation in countries such as Brazil, as well as slightly increasing removals of CO2 from reforestation and afforestation projects.
However, these estimates are subject to large uncertainties – as recently as 2020 researchers thought land-use emissions had been increasing – and the Global Carbon Budget authors suggest that long-term trends should be interpreted with caution.
This year’s budget provides a first estimate of how land-use emissions break down into different categories. They find that permanent deforestation is responsible for emissions of around 4.2GtCO2 per year, with around 1.9GtCO2 removed per year by reforestation and afforestation.
(In addition, there is currently a tiny 0.00001GtCO2 removed by permanent carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture and enhanced rock weathering.)
Deforestation due to shifting cultivation cycles (where deforestation is temporary before land is abandoned to return to forest cover) is responsible for emissions of around 2.9GtCO2 per year, while regrowth in previously cultivated areas removes around 2.8GtCO2 per year. This results in only a small net source of emissions (~0.1GtCO2 per year).
The harvesting of trees for wood (as well as other forest management) leads to net emissions of around 0.8GtCO2 per year, as deforestation for timber production is higher than regrowth rates globally – though this will vary substantially by country and region.
Finally, other emissions from land management, such as peat drainage and burning as well as other land transitions, are responsible for around 1.4GtCO2 per year.
Emissions from wildfires are also presented in the new report, which notes that it is not an additional CO2 source – rather, forest fires are part of the net land carbon sink (or included as land-use emissions if triggered by humans for deforestation purposes).
Chinese emissions drive rising global fossil CO2
Global emissions of fossil CO2 – including coal, oil, gas and cement – increased by around 1.1% in 2023, relative to 2022, with an uncertainty range of 0.0% to 2.1%. This represents a new record high and is 1.4% above the 2019 pre-Covid levels.
The figure below shows global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, divided into emissions from China (red shading), India (yellow), the US (bright blue), EU (dark blue) and the remainder of the world (grey).
Annual fossil CO2 emissions by major countries and the rest of the world from 1959-2023, excluding the cement carbonation sink as national-level values are not available. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
China represents 31% of global CO2 emissions. Their emissions in 2023 are projected to increase by 4% (with an uncertainty range of 1.9% to 6.1%), driven by a rise in emissions from coal (+3.3%), oil (+9.9%) and natural gas (+6.5%). The strong growth in Chinese emissions in 2023 is partly due to a delayed rebound from Covid-19 lockdowns.
India represents 8% of global emissions. In 2023, Indian emissions are projected to increase by 8.2% (ranging from 6.7% to 9.7%), with a 9.5% increase in emissions from coal, a 5.3% increase in emissions from oil, a 5.6% increase in emissions from natural gas and a 8.8% increase in emissions from cement.
The large growth in coal in India is being driven by rapid increases in electricity demand. While India is installing large amounts of renewable energy, it is still far from sufficient to meet the growth in demand. Emissions from India now exceed those from the European Union, though they remain much smaller on a per-capita basis.
The US represents 14% of global emissions (though is responsible for a much larger portion of historical emissions and associated atmospheric accumulation of CO2). US emissions are projected to decrease by 3% in 2023 (ranging from -5.0% to -1.0%). This is being driven by a large decrease in coal emissions, which are expected to fall by more than 18% compared with 2022 levels. Oil emissions are expected to decline by a slight 0.3%, reflecting the rise of electric vehicles, while emissions from gas are expected to increase by 1.4%.
The European Union represents 7% of global emissions. EU emissions are expected to decrease by a sizable 7.4% in 2023, driven by a 18.8% decline in coal emissions, a 1.5% decline in oil emissions and a 6.6% decline in natural gas emissions (driven in part by higher prices and the phaseout of Russian gas).
A combination of rapidly increasing renewable capacity, electric vehicle adoption, lower energy demand and generally high fossil energy prices are driving fairly rapid emissions reductions.
The rest of the world represents 40% of global emissions, of which 2.8% is international aviation and shipping. Emissions in the rest of the world are expected to grow by 0.4% in 2023 – though this is entirely due to growth in international aviation and shipping, which are expected to grow by 11.9% (reflecting a 28% increase in aviation emissions and a 1% increase in shipping emissions). The large increase in aviation emissions reflects the ongoing recovery from pandemic-era declines.
Excluding international aviation and shipping, emissions in the rest of the world are expected to fall by 0.4%.
The total emissions for each year between 2019 and 2023, as well as the countries and regions that were responsible for the changes in absolute emissions, are shown in the figure below. Annual emissions for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and estimates for 2023 are shown by the black bars. The coloured bars show the change in emissions between each set of years, broken down by country or region – the US (bright blue), European Union (dark blue), China (red), India (yellow) and the rest of the world (grey). Negative values show reductions in emissions, while positive values reflect emission increases.
Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (black bars) and drivers of changes between years by country (coloured bars), excluding the cement carbonation sink as national-level values are not available. Negative values indicate reductions in emissions. Note that the y-axis does not start at zero. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
In the absence of an increase in Chinese emissions, global CO2 emissions would have remained flat between 2022 and 2023, with declines in the US, the EU and the rest of the world counterbalancing increases in India and in shipping and aviation.
The large (0.5GtCO2) increase in Chinese emissions relative to 2022 resulted in an overall year-over-year increase in global fossil CO2.
However, there is reason to think that the large increase in Chinese emissions in 2023 will not persist, given that it in part reflected economic recovery after extended Covid lockdowns. As a recent Carbon Brief guest post argued, the combination of slowing economic growth and rapidly expanding clean energy deployments suggests that Chinese emissions might fall in 2024, though it is too early to know with confidence.
The Global Carbon Project also notes that emissions have declined over the past decade (2013-22) in 26 nations despite continued domestic economic growth, representing a long-term decoupling of CO2 emissions and the economy.
These countries include Belgium, Brazil, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US and Zimbabwe. Collectively they represent 28% of global emissions.
Coal emissions reach record highs
Global fossil fuel emissions primarily result from the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is responsible for more emissions than any other fossil fuel, representing approximately 41% of global fossil CO2 emissions in 2023. Oil is the second largest contributor at 32% of fossil CO2, while gas rounds out the pack at 21%.
These percentages reflect both the amount of each fossil fuel consumed globally, but also differences in CO2 intensities. Coal results in the most CO2 emitted per unit of heat or energy produced, followed by oil and natural gas.
The figure below shows global CO2 emissions from different fuels over time, covering coal (grey shading), oil (red) and gas (blue), as well as cement production (yellow) and other sources (purple). While coal emissions increased rapidly in the mid-2000s, it has largely plateaued since 2013. However, coal use increased significantly in 2021 and modestly in 2022 and 2023.
Annual CO2 emissions by fossil fuel from 1959-2023, excluding the cement carbonation sink. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Global emissions from coal increased by 1.1% in 2023 compared to 2023, while oil emissions increased 1.5% and gas emissions increased by 0.47%. Emissions from cement and other sources increased by 0.64%.
Despite setting a new record this year, global coal use is only 4% above 2011 levels – a full 12 years ago. By contrast, during the 2000s, global coal use grew at a rate of around 4% every single year.
The total emissions for each year between 2019 and 2023 (black bars), as well as the absolute change in emissions for each fuel between years, are shown in the figure below.
Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (black bars) and drivers of changes between years by fuel (coloured bars), excluding the cement carbonation sink. Negative values indicate reductions in emissions. Note that the y-axis does not start at zero. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Even though they have been increasing over the past three years, global CO2 emissions from oil remain below pre-pandemic highs of 2019.
Similarly, emissions from natural gas decreased notably in 2022 and were flat in 2023, reflecting the effect of higher prices due to geopolitical instability associated with the conflict in Ukraine.
The global carbon budget
Every year, the Global Carbon Project provides an estimate of the overall “global carbon budget”. This is based on estimates of the release of CO2 through human activity and its uptake by the oceans and land, with the remainder adding to atmospheric concentrations of the gas.
(This differs from the commonly used term “carbon budget”, referring to the amount of CO2 that can be released while keeping warming below global limits of 1.5 or 2C.)
The most recent budget, including estimated values for 2023, is shown in the figure below. Values above zero represent sources of CO2 – from fossil fuels and industry (grey shading) and land use (yellow) – while values below zero represent “carbon sinks” that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any CO2 emissions that are not absorbed by the oceans (dark blue) or land vegetation (green) accumulate in the atmosphere (blue).
Annual global carbon budget of sources and sinks from 1959-2023. Fossil CO2 emissions include the cement carbonation sink. Note that the budget does not fully balance every year due to remaining uncertainties, particularly in sinks. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The ocean takes up around 26% of total human emissions, or around 10.4GtCO2 per year. The ocean CO2 sink has been relatively flat from 2019 to 2022 due to persistent La Niña conditions (which tend to result in lower ocean CO2 uptake), but increased in 2023 in response to the emerging El Niño event.
The land sink takes up around 31% of global emissions, or 12.3GtCO2 per year on average. However, the land sink is expected to be notably lower in 2023 – only 10.4GtCO2 – due to the effect of El Niño on global vegetation.
Global CO2 emissions from fires were above average this year – at 7-8GtCO2 over the first 10 months of the year – largely due to the extreme wildfire season in Canada.
While fire emissions are presented alongside the global carbon budget for the first time in the 2023 report, a direct comparison cannot be made between fire emissions and other carbon budget components as they already show up in both parts of the land sink and land use emissions.
Overall, the impact of the ongoing emissions from human activity is that atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 in 2023 is expected to be around 2.4ppm, which matches the average rate over the past decade (2013-22). The emerging El Niño event is expected to contribute to a somewhat higher growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2024.
Atmosphere accumulation hits new heights
More than 40% of human emissions since the industrial revolution have accumulated in the atmosphere, with the remainder absorbed by land and ocean sinks.
The upper chart in the figure below shows the cumulative human emissions (dark blue line) and atmospheric CO2 accumulation (red) since 1750. The lower chart shows the percentage of cumulative emissions remaining in the atmosphere.
Cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (with the carbonation sink removed) and land use as well as atmospheric CO2 accumulation between 1750 and 2023 (top). Percentage of cumulative CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere over time (bottom). Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The fact that global emissions substantially exceed atmospheric accumulation is a clear sign that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions, and that other natural systems including the ocean and biosphere are net sinks rather than sources.
This is reinforced by direct measurements showing that both are absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere over time.
The fact that less than half of human-caused emissions remain in the atmosphere over time is, ultimately, a good thing; it means that the world has experienced much less severe climate change than if all emissions remained in the atmosphere.
However, as the world continues to warm, the oceans and potentially the land will become less able to absorb a portion of our emissions. This means that the portion of human emissions remaining in the atmosphere is expected to increase in future.
The post Analysis: Growth of Chinese fossil CO2 emissions drives new global record in 2023 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Growth of Chinese fossil CO2 emissions drives new global record in 2023
What if Australia’s worst offshore oil spill hasn’t happened yet?
I’m terrified by the thought.
Our new report in partnership with Environs Kimberley analyses Woodside’s own oil spill modelling and it reveals a worst-case blowout at the corporation’s proposed Browse gas project at Scott Reef could be up to 30 times larger than the Montara oil spill – one of Australia’s worst environmental disasters to date.
Woodside’s own modelling warns that oil pollution could spread across Scott Reef, the Kimberley coast and beyond, with impacts Woodside itself describes as “severe”, “potentially irreversible” and “catastrophic”.
What’s at stake?
Scott Reef really is like nowhere else on Earth.
Scott Reef is Australia’s largest freestanding oceanic reef, a pristine marine ecosystem that has thrived for around 15 million years. About 270 kilometres off the Kimberley coast, it supports more than 2,000 marine species, including endangered pygmy blue whales, nesting green sea turtles, the endangered dusky sea snake and ancient corals.
Yet Woodside wants to drill up to 57 toxic wells around and underneath it, causing decades of deafening seismic blasting, light and noise pollution, shipping traffic and, of course, the risk of a ‘catastrophic’ oil spill.
What did Woodside’s modelling find?
Before Browse can be approved, Woodside is required to assess what could happen if something goes wrong. We analysed the corporation’s own environmental assessment documents, and the findings are deeply concerning.
Woodside’s modelling shows that the most severe Browse scenario would be the worst oil spill in Australian history, releasing up to 893,739 barrels of condensate into the Timor Sea. For context, the Montara oil spill released 30,000 barrels of oil.
A blowout of this scale could see oil spread hundreds of kilometres, reaching some of Australia’s most important marine environments, extending into Indonesian and Timor-Leste waters and even washing up along parts of the Kimberley coast. Entrained oil – oil mixed throughout the water column – is predicted to travel up to 863 kilometres from the spill site.
The modelling identifies potential impacts to at least nine marine parks, eight reefs and three Indigenous Protected Areas, as well as important habitats for endangered species, including pygmy blue whales, green sea turtles, seabirds and other marine life.
These aren’t just places on a map. They are globally significant marine ecosystems that support ancient coral reefs, endangered wildlife, tourism, fisheries and coastal communities. A spill of this scale wouldn’t simply affect one reef; it has the potential to impact an entire connected marine ecosystem.
Why this matters now
The most important thing is that Browse has not yet been approved. That means there is still time to stop Browse and the serious risks outlined in Woodside’s own modelling.
The science has been done. The risks have been modelled. The decision now rests with the Australian Government.
Governments are often forced to respond after environmental disasters happen. This is one of those rare moments where they have the opportunity to act before one does.
What you can do
Together, we still have the power to stop Woodside and save Scott Reef.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
The more people who support saving Scott Reef, the harder it is for governments to approve Woodside’s drilling plans – Browse.
Together, we can ensure a reef that has existed for millions of years is known for its incredible biodiversity – not as the site of Australia’s worst oil spill.
Let’s save Scott Reef.
What if Australia’s worst offshore oil spill hasn’t happened yet?
Analysis by Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley shows that a severe oil spill at Scott Reef could be the worst in Australian history — Woodside has labeled the impact of such a spill ‘catastrophic’.
According to the fossil fuel company the impacts to Scott Reef ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’. Oily pollution could reach as far as the Kimberley coast to the coasts of Indonesia and Timor Leste while endangered marine species live, breed, forage and migrate within the potential disaster zone: whales, seabirds, turtles and other marine life are all at risk.
Report Summary
Woodside’s Browse drilling plans at Scott Reef have been found to pose unacceptable risks to the Western Australian environment once before. To secure their approvals under Federal and Western Australian law, Woodside has modelled a number of possible oil spill scenarios that could result from the Browse project.
Key Findings
- The most severe Browse scenario would be the worst oil spill in Australian history – up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara oil spill disaster. According to Woodside, the environmental impact of such a spill would be ‘catastrophic’.
- Scott Reef and Sandy Islet could be covered in oily pollution. Woodside has conceded that the impacts to Scott Reef from a major spill ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’.
- A blowout of this scale could see oil washing up on the Western Australian Kimberley Coast, and affect at least nine marine parks, eight reefs, three Indigenous Protected Areas, and several islands in Australian, Indonesian and Timor Leste waters.
- Endangered and vulnerable marine species live, breed, forage and migrate within the potential disaster zone: whales, seabirds, turtles and other marine life are all at risk.
- A Browse oil spill threatens important tourism, diving, surfing and fishing hotspots, with potential ‘long term impacts’ for tourism operators in the Kimberley or visiting Rowley Shoals or Scott Reef.
Scott Reef: An ancient oceanic reef system
Scott Reef, located around 270 kilometres off the Western Australian Kimberley coast, is one of Australia’s largest oceanic reef systems. Ancient Scott Reef has been thriving for 15 million years, having adapted to changing seas. Today, it is a haven for marine life, providing vital habitat for more than a thousand species, including corals, fish, sharks and rays.
The deep waters surrounding the reef are home to 29 known species of whale and dolphin, including endangered pygmy blue whales, which travel along the Western Australian coast and stop at Scott Reef during their annual migration to forage and feed. The dusky sea snake, also classified as endangered, lives at Scott Reef. Sandy Islet, part of Scott Reef, is a nesting ground for a small population of genetically distinct green sea turtles, a species classified as vulnerable.
If Woodside, Australia’s largest oil and gas company, were to gain approval to drill for gas at Scott Reef, the ecosystem would face a barrage of industrial impacts, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, underwater noise, artificial lighting, pipe- laying, and fast-moving vessels over years of construction and operation. Add to that the risk of a major oil spill that could be Australia’s worst environmental disaster, with consequences spreading far beyond Scott Reef.
A disaster worse than Montara, according to Woodside itself
Woodside has proposed drilling 50 new wells around Scott Reef to extract oil and gas from beneath the reef as part of the Browse project. Woodside has proposed to build a 900-kilometre-long undersea pipeline to connect the Scott Reef-Browse site with its North West Shelf facility at Karratha in Western Australia, where the gas would be processed, mostly for international export. Woodside has modelled a number of possible oil spill scenarios that could result from the Browse project. Woodside performed this modelling to comply with mandatory environmental impact assessment requirements under Federal and Western Australian laws.
To identify which areas are at risk of an oil spill from the Browse project, Woodside engaged experts to conduct probabilistic modelling. Experts simulated different spills, noting which locations would be contaminated by oil and how much oil would make it to shore. They also assessed how likely each location was to be affected.
” Woodside’s ‘worst case’ scenario is a blowout at the Torosa gasfield, directly under Scott Reef.”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley’s analysis shows an oil spill at Torosa could see 893,739 barrels of condensate spilled into the Timor Sea. This would be up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara oil spill, considered one of Australia’s worst environmental disasters. Oil leaked into the Timor Sea for days after an oil rig caught fire off the Western Australian coast, causing a 90,000 square kilometre oil slick that spread all the way to Indonesia.
People, places and wildlife at risk
Woodside’s modelling shows that an oil spill at Scott Reef could affect eight reefs, at least nine marine parks and three Indigenous Protected Areas. In the event of a worst-case oil spill, Scott Reef and Sandy Islet, being closest to the wellhead, would be worst affected.
Woodside’s modelling finds that the impacts to Scott Reef from a major spill like this ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’. The impacts of an oil spill are not confined to Scott Reef – according to Woodside’s modelling, ‘hydrocarbon spills resulting from the proposed Browse to NWS Project have the potential to significantly impact shoreline habitats at Scott Reef, Ashmore Reef, Cartier Island and Rowley Shoals.’
Oil from a blowout could also reach neighbouring countries, including Pulau Rote, Savu, Sumba and West Timor in Indonesia, and Timor Leste. This is not an exhaustive list of all places that could be affected by an oil spill at Scott Reef. Once oil hits the water, its spread is influenced by the wind, tides, currents and other external conditions. An oil spill from the Browse project could have a less or more severe impact than the modelling indicates. Equally, Woodside cannot rule out other sites being affected.
A disaster for marine life
Woodside’s oil spill modelling shows that a blowout from the Browse project would put whales, turtles, seabirds, coral, significant feedstocks such as plankton and seagrass, fish, dolphins and other marine life at risk. According to Woodside, a Browse oil spill would:
- Directly threaten the coral at Scott Reef, with ‘potential for near total coral mortality in the worst affected areas’; a severe spill could also harm coral at Seringapatam Reef and the Rowley Shoals.
- ‘Significantly impact’ the plankton, seagrass and macroalgae that support the entire food chain.
- ‘Significantly impact bird species, including protected species’, which are ‘particularly vulnerable’ to oil spills.
A spill would not only threaten birds at Scott Reef, but those that nest or breed at Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island, Browse Island, islands along the Kimberley coastline (such as the Lacepede Islands) and Rowley Shoals. Woodside’s oil spill modelling specifically notes the potential risk to thirteen species of seabirds.
Oil spills also threaten whales and other cetaceans, especially concentrations of oil on the surface of the water. This can cause ‘sublethal and lethal effects’, especially when feeding, as whales and other marine mammals have been found to aspirate oil when breathing through an oil slick at the sea surface, thus absorbing hydrocarbons directly into their lungs, leading to sublethal and lethal impacts.
According to Woodside’s modelling, a Browse oil spill could be particularly harmful to the spinner dolphins living at Scott Reef with the potential for ‘a significant portion of this local population to be impacted in the event of a worst-case hydrocarbon spill’.
Marine reptiles, including the green sea turtles found at Scott Reef, are also at risk. Woodside’s modelling warns that an oil spill could cause ‘significant mortality amongst adults and hatchlings’, leading to ‘the potential for longer-term impacts on the Scott Reef – Browse Island genetic stock of green turtles’. Further, an oil spill could have lasting impacts on the breeding populations of olive ridley turtles, flatback turtles and hawksbill turtles. Essentially, all marine life found at or near the sea surface could be impacted by such a spill.
Woodside cannot be trusted
In Woodside’s inadequate response plan, Woodside states that it considers an oil spill to be ‘highly unlikely’ and the threat to the environment and wildlife to be ‘acceptable’. We do not believe these are credible assertions. For instance, the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which is assessing Woodside’s Browse to NWS proposal, did not agree. In August 2024, it emerged that the EPA advised Woodside that its Browse development posed ‘unacceptable’ risks to WA’s environment.
A potential oil spill from the Torosa field was one of the risks cited by the EPA in its preliminary decision not to approve the project. Woodside has subsequently revised its plans to drill for gas at Scott Reef, proposing to use unproven new technology that the company claims would bring a spill under control more quickly, reducing the spill time from 77 days to 13 days.
However, an independent assessment commissioned by Woodside did not support these claims. Instead, the expert questioned whether the piece of equipment proposed by Woodside — a capping stack — could be deployed in practice, and the time it would likely take to do so.
While Woodside has also claimed that a ‘pyrotechnic shear ram’ would reduce the spill time to as little as 24 hours, the company’s expert noted that this had yet to be ‘used in anger’ and that ‘there remains a risk’ that it fails to function.
Woodside’s alarming track record
Woodside’s stated ability to prevent or control a disaster is undercut by its poor environmental and safety track record. There have been numerous incidents at Woodside’s facilities over the last decade threatening the safety of its workers and the environment. These include:
- Whale calf collision: In August 2023, a tugboat operated by a Woodside contractor hit a whale calf in the Port of Dampier. The incident was only confirmed by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) after media inquiries.
- Explosion at Pluto LNG plant: In May 2023, an explosion forced Woodside to shut down and evacuate its Pluto LNG facility. Woodside was accused by unions of downplaying the incident. Eighteen months later, Woodside was again forced to put Pluto LNG into an emergency shutdown after the control systems failed.
- Oil spill near Ningaloo: In May 2025, Woodside spilled 16,000 litres of ‘hydrocarbons’ into the ocean near World Heritage listed Ningaloo Reef while decommissioning its Griffin facility. Three months later, the government regulator ordered Woodside to stop decommissioning operations at Griffin and nearby Stybarrow following a series of ‘preventable health and safety incidents’ at both sites.
- Oil spill in Cossack field: In 2016, a Woodside oil rig in the Cossack field leaked over 10,500 litres of oil into the ocean due to a degraded seal.
- Northern Endeavour clean-up debacle: Woodside evaded a $362 million decommissioning bill for its Northern Endeavour oil platform in the Timor Sea by offloading it onto a one-person operation. When the buyer went bankrupt, the Federal Government had to step in, eventually putting a levy on offshore oil and gas companies to recover the clean up costs.
- Cost-cutting and corrosion: In 2021, Woodside announced a 30% cut in operating costs, focusing on maintenance, despite repeated warnings from the government regulator about corrosion at its oil and gas facilities. The warnings continued. In July 2023, the regulator blamed Woodside’s ‘inadequate maintenance’ for serious corrosion of the flare bridge and support structure at its North Rankin complex.
- Abandoned infrastructure: Woodside finished extracting oil from the Enfield field in 2018. In 2019, the government regulator ordered Woodside to remove the Nganhurra Riser Turret Mooring (RTM), an 83-metre-long, 2,452 tonne piece of infrastructure. Woodside instead tried to sink the RTM near the World Heritage-listed Ningaloo Reef. After a public outcry, Woodside finally removed the RTM in October 2023.
A lasting legacy for our oceans: Save Scott Reef from Woodside’s pollution
Woodside’s Browse proposal to drill for oil and gas presents unacceptable risks to Scott Reef and the web of life it supports from Western Australia to Indonesia.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley are calling on the WA and Federal Governments to save Scott Reef by rejecting Woodside’s Browse project once and for all.
What you can do
Together, we still have the power to stop Woodside and save Scott Reef.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Analysis by Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley shows that a severe oil spill at Scott Reef could be the worst in Australian history — Woodside has labeled the impact of such a spill ‘catastrophic’. According to the fossil fuel company the impacts to Scott Reef ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’. Oily pollution could reach as far as the Kimberley coast to the coasts of Indonesia and Timor Leste while endangered marine species live, breed, forage and migrate within the potential disaster zone: whales, seabirds, turtles and other marine life are all at risk.
Woodside’s Browse drilling plans at Scott Reef have been found to pose unacceptable risks to the Western Australian environment once before. To secure their approvals under Federal and Western Australian law, Woodside has modelled a number of possible oil spill scenarios that could result from the Browse project.
GPAP illustration of a ‘worst case’ senario oil spill based on Woodside’s own modeling.
Key Findings
- The most severe Browse scenario would be the worst oil spill in Australian history – up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara oil spill disaster. According to Woodside, the environmental impact of such a spill would be ‘catastrophic’.
- Scott Reef and Sandy Islet could be covered in oily pollution. Woodside has conceded that the impacts to Scott Reef from a major spill ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’.
- A blowout of this scale could see oil washing up on the Western Australian Kimberley Coast, and affect at least nine marine parks, eight reefs, three Indigenous Protected Areas, and several islands in Australian, Indonesian and Timor Leste waters.
- Endangered and vulnerable marine species live, breed, forage and migrate within the potential disaster zone: whales, seabirds, turtles and other marine life are all at risk.
- A Browse oil spill threatens important tourism, diving, surfing and fishing hotspots, with potential ‘long term impacts’ for tourism operators in the Kimberley or visiting Rowley Shoals or Scott Reef.
Browse and Montara: Location and extent in the Timor Sea: GPAP illustration based on maps from ‘The Montara Oil Spill: A 2009 Well Blowout in the Timor Sea’ and a Browse loss of well containment.
Scott Reef: An ancient oceanic reef system
Scott Reef, located around 270 kilometres off the Western Australian Kimberley coast, is one of Australia’s largest oceanic reef systems. Ancient Scott Reef has been thriving for 15 million years, having adapted to changing seas. Today, it is a haven for marine life, providing vital habitat for more than a thousand species, including corals, fish, sharks and rays.
The deep waters surrounding the reef are home to 29 known species of whale and dolphin, including endangered pygmy blue whales, which travel along the Western Australian coast and stop at Scott Reef during their annual migration to forage and feed. The dusky sea snake, also classified as endangered, lives at Scott Reef. Sandy Islet, part of Scott Reef, is a nesting ground for a small population of genetically distinct green sea turtles, a species classified as vulnerable.
If Woodside, Australia’s largest oil and gas company, were to gain approval to drill for gas at Scott Reef, the ecosystem would face a barrage of industrial impacts, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, underwater noise, artificial lighting, pipe- laying, and fast-moving vessels over years of construction and operation. Add to that the risk of a major oil spill that could be Australia’s worst environmental disaster, with consequences spreading far beyond Scott Reef.
GPAP illustration of drilling sights at Scott Reef.
A disaster worse than Montara, according to Woodside itself
Woodside has proposed drilling 50 new wells around Scott Reef to extract oil and gas from beneath the reef as part of the Browse project. Woodside has proposed to build a 900-kilometre-long undersea pipeline to connect the Scott Reef-Browse site with its North West Shelf facility at Karratha in Western Australia, where the gas would be processed, mostly for international export. Woodside has modelled a number of possible oil spill scenarios that could result from the Browse project. Woodside performed this modelling to comply with mandatory environmental impact assessment requirements under Federal and Western Australian laws.
To identify which areas are at risk of an oil spill from the Browse project, Woodside engaged experts to conduct probabilistic modelling. Experts simulated different spills, noting which locations would be contaminated by oil and how much oil would make it to shore. They also assessed how likely each location was to be affected.
” Woodside’s ‘worst case’ scenario is a blowout at the Torosa gasfield, directly under Scott Reef.”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley’s analysis shows an oil spill at Torosa could see 893,739 barrels of condensate spilled into the Timor Sea. This would be up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara oil spill, considered one of Australia’s worst environmental disasters. Oil leaked into the Timor Sea for days after an oil rig caught fire off the Western Australian coast, causing a 90,000 square kilometre oil slick that spread all the way to Indonesia.
People, places and wildlife at risk
Woodside’s modelling shows that an oil spill at Scott Reef could affect eight reefs, at least nine marine parks and three Indigenous Protected Areas. In the event of a worst-case oil spill, Scott Reef and Sandy Islet, being closest to the wellhead, would be worst affected.
Woodside’s modelling finds that the impacts to Scott Reef from a major spill like this ‘would likely be severe and potentially irreversible’. The impacts of an oil spill are not confined to Scott Reef – according to Woodside’s modelling, ‘hydrocarbon spills resulting from the proposed Browse to NWS Project have the potential to significantly impact shoreline habitats at Scott Reef, Ashmore Reef, Cartier Island and Rowley Shoals.’
Oil from a blowout could also reach neighbouring countries, including Pulau Rote, Savu, Sumba and West Timor in Indonesia, and Timor Leste. This is not an exhaustive list of all places that could be affected by an oil spill at Scott Reef. Once oil hits the water, its spread is influenced by the wind, tides, currents and other external conditions. An oil spill from the Browse project could have a less or more severe impact than the modelling indicates. Equally, Woodside cannot rule out other sites being affected.
A disaster for marine life
Woodside’s oil spill modelling shows that a blowout from the Browse project would put whales, turtles, seabirds, coral, significant feedstocks such as plankton and seagrass, fish, dolphins and other marine life at risk. According to Woodside, a Browse oil spill would:
- Directly threaten the coral at Scott Reef, with ‘potential for near total coral mortality in the worst affected areas’; a severe spill could also harm coral at Seringapatam Reef and the Rowley Shoals.
- ‘Significantly impact’ the plankton, seagrass and macroalgae that support the entire food chain.
- ‘Significantly impact bird species, including protected species’, which are ‘particularly vulnerable’ to oil spills.
A spill would not only threaten birds at Scott Reef, but those that nest or breed at Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island, Browse Island, islands along the Kimberley coastline (such as the Lacepede Islands) and Rowley Shoals. Woodside’s oil spill modelling specifically notes the potential risk to thirteen species of seabirds.
Oil spills also threaten whales and other cetaceans, especially concentrations of oil on the surface of the water. This can cause ‘sublethal and lethal effects’, especially when feeding, as whales and other marine mammals have been found to aspirate oil when breathing through an oil slick at the sea surface, thus absorbing hydrocarbons directly into their lungs, leading to sublethal and lethal impacts.
According to Woodside’s modelling, a Browse oil spill could be particularly harmful to the spinner dolphins living at Scott Reef with the potential for ‘a significant portion of this local population to be impacted in the event of a worst-case hydrocarbon spill’.
Marine reptiles, including the green sea turtles found at Scott Reef, are also at risk. Woodside’s modelling warns that an oil spill could cause ‘significant mortality amongst adults and hatchlings’, leading to ‘the potential for longer-term impacts on the Scott Reef – Browse Island genetic stock of green turtles’. Further, an oil spill could have lasting impacts on the breeding populations of olive ridley turtles, flatback turtles and hawksbill turtles. Essentially, all marine life found at or near the sea surface could be impacted by such a spill.
GPAP illustration of pygmy blue whale and humpback whale migration path through Scott Reef and a ‘worst case’ oil spill senario based on Woodside’s own modeling.
Woodside cannot be trusted
In Woodside’s inadequate response plan, Woodside states that it considers an oil spill to be ‘highly unlikely’ and the threat to the environment and wildlife to be ‘acceptable’. We do not believe these are credible assertions. For instance, the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which is assessing Woodside’s Browse to NWS proposal, did not agree. In August 2024, it emerged that the EPA advised Woodside that its Browse development posed ‘unacceptable’ risks to WA’s environment.
A potential oil spill from the Torosa field was one of the risks cited by the EPA in its preliminary decision not to approve the project. Woodside has subsequently revised its plans to drill for gas at Scott Reef, proposing to use unproven new technology that the company claims would bring a spill under control more quickly, reducing the spill time from 77 days to 13 days.
However, an independent assessment commissioned by Woodside did not support these claims. Instead, the expert questioned whether the piece of equipment proposed by Woodside — a capping stack — could be deployed in practice, and the time it would likely take to do so.
While Woodside has also claimed that a ‘pyrotechnic shear ram’ would reduce the spill time to as little as 24 hours, the company’s expert noted that this had yet to be ‘used in anger’ and that ‘there remains a risk’ that it fails to function.
Woodside’s alarming track record
Woodside’s stated ability to prevent or control a disaster is undercut by its poor environmental and safety track record. There have been numerous incidents at Woodside’s facilities over the last decade threatening the safety of its workers and the environment. These include:
- Whale calf collision: In August 2023, a tugboat operated by a Woodside contractor hit a whale calf in the Port of Dampier. The incident was only confirmed by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) after media inquiries.
- Explosion at Pluto LNG plant: In May 2023, an explosion forced Woodside to shut down and evacuate its Pluto LNG facility. Woodside was accused by unions of downplaying the incident. Eighteen months later, Woodside was again forced to put Pluto LNG into an emergency shutdown after the control systems failed.
- Oil spill near Ningaloo: In May 2025, Woodside spilled 16,000 litres of ‘hydrocarbons’ into the ocean near World Heritage listed Ningaloo Reef while decommissioning its Griffin facility. Three months later, the government regulator ordered Woodside to stop decommissioning operations at Griffin and nearby Stybarrow following a series of ‘preventable health and safety incidents’ at both sites.
- Oil spill in Cossack field: In 2016, a Woodside oil rig in the Cossack field leaked over 10,500 litres of oil into the ocean due to a degraded seal.
- Northern Endeavour clean-up debacle: Woodside evaded a $362 million decommissioning bill for its Northern Endeavour oil platform in the Timor Sea by offloading it onto a one-person operation. When the buyer went bankrupt, the Federal Government had to step in, eventually putting a levy on offshore oil and gas companies to recover the clean up costs.
- Cost-cutting and corrosion: In 2021, Woodside announced a 30% cut in operating costs, focusing on maintenance, despite repeated warnings from the government regulator about corrosion at its oil and gas facilities. The warnings continued. In July 2023, the regulator blamed Woodside’s ‘inadequate maintenance’ for serious corrosion of the flare bridge and support structure at its North Rankin complex.
- Abandoned infrastructure: Woodside finished extracting oil from the Enfield field in 2018. In 2019, the government regulator ordered Woodside to remove the Nganhurra Riser Turret Mooring (RTM), an 83-metre-long, 2,452 tonne piece of infrastructure. Woodside instead tried to sink the RTM near the World Heritage-listed Ningaloo Reef. After a public outcry, Woodside finally removed the RTM in October 2023.
A lasting legacy for our oceans: Save Scott Reef from Woodside’s pollution
Woodside’s Browse proposal to drill for oil and gas presents unacceptable risks to Scott Reef and the web of life it supports from Western Australia to Indonesia.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley are calling on the WA and Federal Governments to save Scott Reef by rejecting Woodside’s Browse project once and for all.
What you can do
Together, we still have the power to stop Woodside and save Scott Reef.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits