A global treaty on plastics, which is being touted as the most important environmental treaty since the 2015 Paris Agreement, is set to be negotiated in South Korea over the next week.
At the fifth and final scheduled session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5), member countries hope to finalise and approve the text of the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution”.
A successful treaty could have important implications for climate change.
The production, use and disposal of plastics is responsible for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and they are typically made from fossil fuels. Plastics production is expected to be one of the leading drivers of oil demand growth over the coming years.
Measures to reduce plastics use will be a key part of the agenda, as around 90% of emissions from plastics come from production. The negotiations will see countries discuss setting targets, accountability and transparency measures.
Carbon Brief analysis shows that without any agreement to cut plastic production, emissions from plastics could consume half of the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
One expert tells Carbon Brief that the best outcome possible for the negotiations is to ratify a global target to limit plastics production, coupled with legally binding national targets.
However, she warns that oil-producing countries are likely to veto any such proposal.
Below, Carbon Brief presents five key charts showing why the plastics treaty matters for climate change.
- Plastics currently cause triple the emissions of aviation
- Plastics will drive up oil demand over the coming decades
- Plastics could use up half the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C by 2050
- A plastics treaty could curb future plastics emissions
- Could the plastics sector become net-zero by 2050?
- Methodology
1. Plastics currently cause triple the emissions of aviation
Greenhouse gas emissions in 2023, in billion tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), the OECD and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2024).
Plastics are a versatile and durable material that have revolutionised industries from fashion to medicine. However, they also cause serious environmental problems.
The most commonly discussed downside of the widespread global use of plastic is the ecosystem damage caused by waste. Even if disposed of safely, the production and disposal of plastics produce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
Carbon Brief calculations suggest that plastic lifecycles generated more than 2.7bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2023 – around 5% of global emissions. This is roughly three times more than the emissions produced by aviation, as shown in the graphic above.
Around 90% of emissions from plastics come from production – the process of extracting fossil fuels and converting them into plastics. The world produces around 400m tonnes of plastics every year and this number is expected to grow over the coming decades.
Most plastics are made from fossil fuels, using oil, coal or gas converted into feedstock chemicals. Extracting the fossil fuels needed from underground is directly associated with greenhouse gas emissions, for example due to leaky mines, wells and pipes that contribute to rising methane emissions.
Overall, extracting oil, gas and coal from the ground accounts for around one-fifth of plastics production emissions.
The rest of the emissions associated with plastics production come from the processes required to first convert the fossil fuels into plastics. The fossil fuels are refined to produce petrochemical feedstocks, such as ethane and naphtha.
In one of the most emissions-intensive steps of the process, these feedstocks are broken apart in a high-pressure steam cracker to produce chemicals called monomers. Finally, the monomers are joined into chains called polymers, which are used to construct plastics.
The remaining plastic emissions – which account for around 10% of the total – are emitted when materials are disposed of. One study finds that in this “end-of-life” stage, only around 9% of all plastics ever have been recycled, while 79% ended up in landfill and 12% were incinerated.
2. Plastics will drive up oil demand over the coming decades
Annual growth in oil demand, in millions of barrels. Source: IEA Oil 2024 report
The world’s consumption of oil is currently around 100m barrels per day. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) special report, around half of the oil produced globally is currently used to fuel road transport – and this is being squeezed by the rising popularity of electric vehicles (EVs).
Along with renewables substituting for oil-fired electricity generation and increasingly efficient engines, EVs are the major driver of expectations that global oil demand could soon peak.
Petrochemicals feedstocks – chemical substances derived from fossil fuels that can then be used to make products such as plastics, rubbers and fertilisers – are widely seen as the last growth market for global oil demand. As such, the future of the $700bn plastics production industry is a key concern of the fossil-fuel industry.
Currently, only 14m barrels per day are used as a petrochemical feedstock – the majority of which is used to produce plastics. But the IEA expects this to grow further in the coming years, even as demand in other sectors falls.
The figure above shows projected annual growth in oil demand from petrochemical feedstocks (red) and other sectors, such as road transport and aviation (blue), up to 2030, according to the IEA’s Oil 2024 report.
Numbers above zero indicate an increase in oil demand compared to the previous year, while numbers below zero mean a decrease.
3. Plastics could use up half the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C by 2050
Annual lifecycle greenhouse gas emission, in billions of tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), OECD, Cabernard et al (2021) and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2024).
To have a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, humanity can only emit a further 200bn tonnes of CO2, according to the latest estimate from the emissions gap report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Unless there is a change in current trends, plastics production is expected to use up a significant proportion of this carbon budget.
A landmark 2024 report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) outlines two scenarios for plastics growth between now and 2050. Under its “conservative growth scenario”, the report says that plastics production will grow by 2.5% per year, based on projections of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Meanwhile, an alternative scenario is defined by a much more rapid 4% per year growth scenario, based on projections from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM)
Carbon Brief finds that, under the conservative growth scenario, annual “lifecycle” emissions from plastics could double by 2050, reaching 5.2GtCO2e. Under this scenario, plastics production, use and disposal would cumulatively emit 104GtCO2e between 2024 and 2050, consuming more than half of the remaining carbon budget.
Under the rapid growth scenario, cumulative emissions would be 130GtCO2e – or around 65% of the remaining carbon budget.
The rise in annual emissions from plastics, including all stages from fossil-fuel extraction to plastics disposal, are shown above. The black line indicates historical emissions, while the dark blue line shows the conservative growth scenario from the LBNL report, originally taken from the OECD.
4. A treaty could curb future plastics emissions
Annual lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, in billions of tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), OECD, Cabernard et al (2021) and Rwanda/Peru 40×40 proposal from INC-4 negotiations.
At the negotiations in South Korea, countries will attempt to ratify a legally binding agreement on curbing plastics pollution.
Daniela Duran Gonzalez is a senior legal campaigner focused on the plastics treaty at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL). She tells Carbon Brief that when discussing emissions from plastics at INC-5, experts usually focus on limiting production because plastics production is “challenging to decarbonise”.
At the negotiations, countries will consider a global target to limit plastics production, Duran explains. She likens this to the Paris Agreement 1.5C warming limit, arguing that “it gives us a north star, but it doesn’t provide any enforceable obligation to any country to actually achieve it”.
If it is agreed, the treaty could stipulate different ways to achieve this overall target. The first option, which Duran says is “very vague”, is for countries to all work towards the target at their own discretion, without any targets set.
Another method with more accountability would be for countries to set their own voluntary, non-legally binding and non-enforceable measures – similar to the climate pledges (“nationally determined contributions”) that countries submit under the Paris Agreement.
The most enforceable method on the table would be to set legally binding targets for each country, Duran explains. She says this could work in a similar way to the Montreal Protocol, which successfully cut global emissions of substances that deplete the ozone later.
To set targets, countries would need to agree on a baseline year to measure against, a goal and a deadline for the goal to be met.
For example, at the last set of negotiations (INC-4) earlier this year in Ottawa, Rwanda and Peru put forward a global target for a 40% reduction on 2025 levels by 2040. Under this scenario, plastics would emit 52GtCO2e by 2050.
Others have suggested a cap on plastic production at 2025 levels – a scenario that would see the production, use and disposal of plastics emit 76bn tonnes of CO2e by 2050. These scenarios are shown in light blue and blue on the graph above.
In early November, Ecuadorian ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso – chair of the INC – developed and submitted his non-paper three to the committee for the talks. This document set out his proposed basis for the negotiations.
Under the proposal, a single party would be able to veto any decision, similar to the process under the UN climate regime. WWF warns that this “can result in a stagnant and dead treaty, incapable of adapting to changing developments and circumstances in the future”.
Developed countries have already been accused of bowing to pressure from lobbyists seeking to avoid any caps on plastics production at the international negotiations. According to CIEL analysis, at the last set of talks, 196 fossil fuel and industry lobbyists registered, up from the 143 who registered at the previous discussions in Nairobi.
Duran tells Carbon Brief that plastics production is an “existential” issue for Gulf countries, whose economies currently rely on continued oil and gas extraction.
As a result, she says that these countries likely will not be “negotiating in good faith” at the INC-5 and “will never accept a treaty that has any mention of plastic production, because it’s their lifeline”. She argues for other countries to “overcome this idea of universal ratification” to ensure a “good” treaty.
According to expert interviews conducted by the University of Portsmouth, crucial outcomes from the negotiations include deciding on a voting mechanism as a backup if consensus cannot be reached.
(The UN climate regime must take all decisions by consensus because rules on how it makes decisions – including voting – were never agreed.)
5. Could the plastics sector become net zero by 2050?
Carbon content flows for the proposed ‘circular carbon’ net-zero plastics sector pathway in the year 2050, million tonnes of carbon (MtC). TWh = terawatt hour. Source: Based on Meys et al (2021)
INC-5 negotiations could lead to a reduction in plastics production, which could be key to limiting emissions from the industry. However, decarbonising the production, use and disposal of plastics could also help to bring down the carbon footprint of the sector.
One way to reduce emissions is to recycle plastics. Only 9% of plastics that have ever been produced have been recycled. However, the present-day number is likely higher, as recycling rates around the world are rising.
A report by the IEA says that most plastics recycling today is physical or “mechanical”. This involves grinding down plastics without changing their chemical structure, but can lead to the quality of plastics degrading over time.
Meanwhile, chemical recycling is becoming more popular, it says. This involves breaking down the plastics back into small chemical sections called monomers, which can be used to make new plastics. This method generally produces a higher-quality plastic, but it can be more energy intensive, resulting in higher emissions.
Another option is to switch from using petrochemical feedstocks, which are derived from fossil fuels, to using alternative feedstocks.
Bio-based feedstocks, such as starch, can also be used to produce plastics. These biological materials draw down carbon as they grow and also do not have the emissions associated with fossil fuel extraction.
Meanwhile, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) can be used to draw down CO2 from chemical plants before it enters the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can be combined with hydrogen to generate synthetic feedstocks. Using renewable energy to produce the hydrogen for this process can help to keep the materials’ carbon footprint low.
The IEA report says that the “use of alternative feedstocks, including bio-based feedstock, remains a niche industry due to a considerable cost gap and competing demand with other sectors”.
A 2021 study explores four pathways through which the global plastics industry could reach net-zero by 2050. These are: a recycling pathway; a CCUS pathway; a biomass pathway; and a circular carbon pathway that combines the three approaches in an “optimal” way.
The combined pathway, shown above, is the only scenario that reaches net-zero emissions.
The chart shows the flow of carbon (in million tonnes) through the full lifecycle of plastics under a net-zero scenario in the year 2050. The width of each arrow corresponds to the amount of carbon flowing. In this scenario, around 38% of plastic feedstocks would be made from biomass, 17% from synthetic feedstocks, 44% from recycling and less than 1% from fossil fuels. This scenario would require an effective recycling rate of around 61%, with only 5% of plastics going to landfill and 34% ending up in the atmosphere through incineration.
However, the authors highlight how challenging it would be to fully decarbonise plastics, if production levels continue to rise.
Cutting emissions while production increases would require a significant uptick in the rate of plastics recycling, they note – and the feasibility of fully decarbonising plastics production will be limited by the amount of renewable energy and biomass available to the sector.
In the scenario above, the plastics sector would require 9,900 terawatt hours of renewable electricity (more than global renewable generation in 2023 or 14% of renewables generation under IEA net-zero scenario in 2050), and 19.3 exajoules of biomass (11% of “untapped” biomass potential in 2050).
Duran tells Carbon Brief that, while the INC-5 can talk about limiting production levels, it has not “entered into the discussion of decarbonising the petrochemical industry”.
She says that there are many reasons for this, including political factors and the uncertainty around measures such as CCUS. However, she also says that “decarbonisation is an issue of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)”.
She explains that the UNFCCC cannot make rulings on plastics production, but can set out frameworks for the transparency and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions caused by plastic production.
Methodology
The Carbon Brief analysis on the lifecycle greenhouse emissions in this article is based on using the production-related emissions figures from the LBNL study (Karali et al., 2024), and combining this with an estimate of the end of life emissions from OECD data.
In order to make these datasets compatible, it is assumed that the percentage share of emissions from end of life, calculated from OECD data, remains constant at 10.8% and then this is applied to the production-related emissions from LBNL.
Due to differences in methodology, scope and poor availability of detailed data, generally, there are varying estimates of the climate impact from plastics. This analysis uses the values from LBNL study because it is the most recent and comprehensive evaluation of the climate impact from plastics, as confirmed by an expert that Carbon Brief spoke to.
However, the emissions measured in that study are higher than commonly cited estimates from the OECD, which suggests that production emissions in 2019 are around 28% lower than the LBNL estimate. This highlights the large uncertainty in measuring the climate impact of plastic, but the LBNL study authors also note that their higher estimate is “due to the increased level of granularity in modelling production processes, technologies and routes”. Their study also has no “by-product’ assumption”, which they say leads to an underestimation of the climate impact of plastics in other studies if they do not attribute emissions by mass across all the products of a given chemical process.
Historical data for plastics emissions is taken from a combination of LBNL, OECD and Cabernard et al (2021). Due to differences in methodology and uncertainty in the data, these different datasets do not match exactly and, therefore, have been scaled based on overlapping years to ensure that they are aligned with the values from the LBNL.
In order to model future emissions in a consistent manner, a constant emissions intensity per tonne of plastic produced from the LBNL study is used (4.9tCO2e per tonne of plastic, excluding end-of-life emissions) and applied to the production projections for each of the three scenarios presented (2.5% growth, cap at 2025 levels, 40% reduction from 2025 levels by 2040).
The baseline plastics-production projections are taken from the LBNL study, which uses OECD projections of plastics demand under a 2.5% growth scenario and assumes that annual plastics production matches annual demand. The projected end-of-life emissions from plastics are then calculated by using the assumed constant percentage share of emissions (10.8%) from end of life, as per above. For the 40% reduction scenario, it is assumed that production levels continue to reduce at the same rate between 2040 and 2050.
The post Five charts: Why a UN plastics treaty matters for climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Five charts: Why a UN plastics treaty matters for climate change
Climate Change
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.
The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.
An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.
Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.
“The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”
Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.
“The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.
“The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”
After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.
Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.
“Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
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.
Why the U.S. Can’t Build Highspeed Rail
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
Woodside’s own modelling reveals catastrophic oil spill risk at Scott Reef
-
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