Federal Court Upholds Environmental Plan for Woodside’s Scarborough Project

The Doctors for the Environment (Australia) Inc. has failed to convince Australia’s Federal Court to revoke regulators’ approval of the environmental plan (EP) for Woodside Energy Group Ltd.’s Scarborough field development and liquefaction project.

The Scarborough Energy Project involves the development of the Scarborough gas field, construction of a second gas processing train for Pluto LNG, modifications to Pluto Train 1 and the establishment of an Integrated Remote Operations Center, according to Woodside.

The Perth-based company expects the project to produce up to eight million tonnes a year of liquefied natural gas and supply 225 terajoules per day to the Western Australian market.

“The Scarborough Energy Project was 86 percent complete as at 30 June 2025 (excluding Pluto Train 1 modifications) and is targeting first LNG cargo in the second half of 2026”, Woodside said in an online statement welcoming the court decision.

Woodside noted the EP, approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) in February, represented the last federal environmental approval for the field’s floating production unit.

In the case, the DEA argued the EP did not include assessments required under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023 and that proposed emission mitigation measures were vague and lacking.

The court ruled, in a decision penned by Justice Shaun McElwaine, “[T]he Regulations do not (explicitly or implicitly) prescribe any methodology that must be implemented to demonstrate that the environmental impacts and risks of the activity will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable and will be of an acceptable level”.

“It follows that it is open to a titleholder to address each criterion by postulating a hypothetical worst-case scenario to demonstrate that the environmental impacts and risks of all GHG emissions will be of an acceptable level, even if there is no displacement effect”, added the judgment, shared on the court’s website.

“A titleholder may proceed in that way as an alternative analysis even if, as in this case, it concludes that the hypothetical is unlikely to occur. Whether proceeding in that way is satisfactory or sufficient is a matter for NOPSEMA to determine”.

The ruling also said it is not the court’s role “to examine the merits of what is the central concern of DEA: the release of materially more GHG into the atmosphere is likely to be catastrophic for the environment and human health”.

The EP, as noted by the ruling, acknowledges estimated Scope 3 emissions of “162 MtCO2-e over the five-year period of the EP and 778 MtCO2-e over the expected combined life of the project”.

“This court is purely concerned to exercise its constitutional function to determine on the case as formulated by DEA whether NOPSEMA erred in law or committed jurisdictional error in purporting to be reasonably satisfied that the EP met the environment plan acceptance criteria in the Regulations”, the ruling said.

“It is not for this court to adjudicate on the existential threat posed by climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere”.

“The proceeding must be dismissed”, the court ruled.

Woodside chief executive Meg O’Neill said, “This outcome reinforces confidence in progressing the Scarborough Energy Project, which is generating thousands of jobs during the construction phase and creating significant supply chain opportunities. The project is expected to contribute more than AUD 50 billion in direct and indirect taxes to Australia’s economy”.

DEA will review the ruling and assess its options, according to a statement published on the website of the Environmental Defenders Office, which represented the plaintiffs.

“After today’s decision, it is clear that Australia’s offshore gas regulations are not living up to the broader public interest”, DEA executive director Dr Kate Wylie said.

“DEA’s legal action took place in the broader context of a global climate emergency. This crisis has had profoundly harmful consequences for the health of billions of people around the world, and the impacts are becoming worse”, Wylie added.

“Doctors are responding to emergencies such as heatwaves, floods, bushfires and storms. The toll is not just on physical health – but also on mental health”.

“[T]he least our governments can do is to ensure such projects are subjected to thorough scrutiny to ensure proposals address climate impacts in a meaningful way”, Wylie said.

Rigzone asked NOPSEMA for comment.

To contact the author, email jov.onsat@rigzone.com