PERTH, May 15, 2026, 04:09 AWST
After recent reporting highlighted Western Australia’s position on emissions, Woodside Energy Group’s stalled Browse LNG project—now carrying a price tag of A$48.7 billion—has once again found itself under the spotlight in the country’s ongoing gas and climate debate.
It’s an uneasy moment for Woodside. With a key federal environmental decision looming, the project faces extra scrutiny in a state where emissions are still climbing—even as the rest of Australia has managed to cut back. On May 14, Guardian Australia revealed leaked documents showing Western Australia was laying plans to sidestep short-term emissions targets. Adding to the pressure, a model commissioned by Woodside found the state would miss net zero by 2050, even without Browse in the mix.
Browse isn’t just another speculative play. Woodside describes it as Australia’s largest untapped offshore gas asset, aiming for 11.4 million tonnes per year of LNG, LPG, and domestic gas. The plan includes two floating production units and a roughly 900-kilometre pipeline feeding into the North West Shelf facilities at Karratha.
This week, Woodside put out a Deloitte Access Economics report claiming the Browse project could deliver over A$141 billion to Australia’s GDP and generate more than A$56 billion in taxes—including A$19.8 billion from the petroleum resource rent tax—if it goes ahead. Chief Executive Liz Westcott called Browse a “major opportunity” with energy security front of mind, and pointed to the modelling as evidence the project would boost jobs and government income. Woodside
The bill has ballooned. Reuters put the project’s capital spending at A$48.7 billion, up from A$27.3 billion in 2019. A carbon capture and storage element, known as CCS—where carbon dioxide is trapped and pumped below ground instead of vented—was tacked on in 2023.
The price tag alone keeps investors glued to the trickle of approvals, as much as the political wrangling. Browse is supposed to supply the North West Shelf LNG plant, which just secured a 40-year extension out to 2070. But development and processing talks keep dragging on. Woodside isn’t going it alone: BP, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and PetroChina’s international unit are all tied in. That’s why the Browse decision is being watched across the sector.
Woodside closed Thursday at A$30.62 on the ASX, dropping 0.8% ahead of Friday’s session. Shares have lost ground in the past few days, despite the company’s ongoing exposure to stronger oil and LNG prices.
There’s no clear tilt among analysts right now. In a recent Investing.com survey of 12, opinions on Woodside were split: four analysts went for buy, six stayed on hold, and two called for a sell. The average target for the next 12 months landed at A$33.205.
Other growth projects are still propping up the company’s immediate operating outlook. In its first-quarter update, Woodside pegged Scarborough’s progress at 96%, tracking for a first LNG cargo in the fourth quarter of 2026. The Louisiana LNG foundation phase didn’t move as quickly—24% done, with first LNG not expected until 2029. Westcott mentioned that Woodside has started a structured business review, with an eye on cutting complexity and tightening capital management.
Browse may not align with Woodside’s schedule. Federal advice on the project could arrive as early as next month, according to ABC. Environmental groups maintain the revised plan remains too risky for Scott Reef. ABC also noted that a related CCS project was pulled and will be resubmitted under updated environmental regulations.
Opposition groups aren’t wasting time turning Woodside’s modelling back on the company. The Conservation Council of WA pointed to the report, with senior campaigner Greta Carroll saying it highlights how Western Australia is lagging on climate action. Carroll argued Woodside is taking away the wrong message by pushing forward with Browse.
Woodside faces more than just a single permit battle ahead. Securing Browse would bolster its long-term gas lineup, joining Scarborough and Louisiana LNG. But a more difficult approval process leaves capital, timing, and emissions uncertainties lingering over a project that’s been in the works for years.
