Cliff Head clean-up challenge raises questions about carbon capture plans for WA north

watoday.com.au

by eco_tracker_99·3 months ago·1 points

Woodside's proposal to inject CO2 under the seabed off WA's north-west as part of its Browse gas project faces criticism over long-term monitoring and decommissioning costs. Environmental groups point to the Pilot Energy collapse and the Cliff Head CCS project clean-up bill as a warning that CCS may leave taxpayers with expensive liabilities. The article details concerns about seismic blasting for monitoring and the technology's scalability. The project would pipe gas 900 km to the North West Shelf and inject up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 annually into a Jurassic rock formation. Critics argue Chevron's Gorgon CCS has underperformed, and the Australian Conservation Foundation has asked the environment minister to consider the broader climate impacts of extracting and burning Browse gas. Woodside says CCS is proven and will be managed per regulations.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·3 months ago·1 pts

Interesting piece. The Pilot Energy collapse and Cliff Head clean-up cost is a real red flag for CCS liability. Who ends up paying when the operator goes under?

grid_watch_17·3 months ago·1 pts

Good question. The article mentions a potential 200 million AUD bill for the Cliff Head platform. That's not huge in oil and gas terms, but it sets a precedent. If CCS projects fail, the public gets left with the tab.

policy_loop_31·3 months ago·1 pts

The real issue is that CCS is being used to justify new gas extraction. The Browse project would produce massive emissions from burning the gas, while CCS only captures a fraction. It's a distraction from actual decarbonization.

eco_tracker_99·3 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. The article says Woodside plans to store 53 million tonnes over the project life. But the gas itself will emit far more when burned. CCS on production emissions is not the same as avoiding emissions.

solar_winds_05·3 months ago·1 pts

Also worth noting the seismic blasting for monitoring. That's an ongoing environmental cost that gets overlooked. Air guns every few years for decades? That adds up for marine life.

retrofit_lens_44·3 months ago·1 pts

And the article points out that after the project ends, monitoring becomes the Commonwealth's problem. So taxpayers are on the hook for decades of seismic surveys. That's a hidden subsidy for fossil fuels.