Woodside commits $18bn to US project that climate advocates warn ‘would export harmful gas until the 2070s’

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Woodside Invests $18 Billion in US LNG Project Amid Climate Concerns"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Woodside, the Australian energy company, has announced a significant investment of $18 billion in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project located in Louisiana, USA. This project is expected to have a lifespan of 40 years and is projected to contribute an estimated 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. This announcement comes at a pivotal moment, just ahead of Woodside's annual general meeting, and follows a period of scrutiny from shareholders regarding the company's emissions strategy. Woodside's CEO, Meg O’Neill, has characterized this investment as a transformative step that will elevate the company to a 'global LNG powerhouse.' The project is anticipated to cost approximately $17.5 billion, with an additional investment of $5.7 billion from investment firm Stonepeak, highlighting the scale and significance of the undertaking in the context of the global energy market.

Climate advocates have raised alarms about the long-term environmental impact of the Louisiana project, particularly its potential to export fossil fuels until the 2070s. Will van de Pol, CEO of Market Forces, emphasized that investors, including AustralianSuper and Hesta, must take responsibility for the emissions associated with this project. The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has also expressed concerns, noting that the majority of Woodside's emissions stem from 'scope 3' emissions, which occur when the gas is sold and consumed. The ACCR has called for shareholders to vote against the re-election of Woodside's directors at the upcoming AGM, citing increasing investor dissatisfaction with the company's climate strategy. Woodside has maintained its commitment to achieving a 30% reduction in direct emissions by 2030 and has outlined plans to invest in lower-carbon technologies, but the decision to proceed with the Louisiana project raises questions about the effectiveness of these measures in addressing the broader climate crisis.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a significant investment by Woodside, an Australian energy company, into a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in the United States. This $18 billion commitment raises concerns from climate advocates regarding the long-term environmental impact, emphasizing that the project is expected to contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions over its lifespan.

Environmental Concerns

The decision to invest in a project that advocates warn could lead to 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions highlights the tension between economic development and climate responsibility. The comparison made by climate advocates equating these emissions to the operation of Australia’s largest coal-fired power station for 120 years serves to underline the potential environmental consequences of such investments.

Investor Reactions

Investor sentiment appears to be a critical factor in this narrative. The article points out that Woodside faced backlash from shareholders in the past regarding its emissions strategy. Advocacy groups are calling for action from major investors, suggesting that they should vote against directors at the upcoming annual general meeting. This implies a growing awareness and dissatisfaction among investors about corporate climate policies.

Corporate Strategy

Woodside's CEO, Meg O’Neill, frames this investment as a transformative step towards establishing the company as a "global LNG powerhouse." This statement likely aims to reassure stakeholders of the potential economic benefits while downplaying the environmental risks highlighted by critics. The divergence between corporate aspirations and environmental realities is a recurring theme in discussions about fossil fuel investments.

Societal and Economic Implications

The announcement could have broader implications for the economy and politics. The pushback from climate advocates may influence public perception and lead to increased scrutiny of corporate practices related to climate change. If significant shareholders act on the advice of advocacy groups, it could signal a shift in how fossil fuel companies are held accountable, potentially impacting future investment strategies.

Target Audience

This news likely resonates with environmental advocates, concerned citizens, and socially responsible investors who are increasingly aware of climate issues. The article serves to mobilize these groups by highlighting the potential negative outcomes of Woodside’s investment, effectively rallying support against such projects.

Market Impact

In financial markets, this news could affect Woodside’s stock performance, especially if investor sentiment sways towards opposing the company’s strategies. Companies involved in fossil fuels, particularly those with significant emissions, may face increased pressure to adapt their business models in response to growing environmental concerns.

Global Context

On a global scale, this investment could reflect the ongoing struggle between fossil fuel reliance and the shift towards renewable energy sources. As nations grapple with climate goals, projects like Woodside’s may become focal points in the debate over energy transition and sustainability.

Use of AI in Reporting

While it’s difficult to determine definitively whether AI was employed in crafting this article, the structured presentation of facts and quotes suggests a methodical approach to reporting. If AI tools were utilized, they might have helped in data analysis or in shaping the narrative to emphasize environmental concerns.

The article is credible, presenting arguments from both corporate and advocacy perspectives, but it clearly leans towards raising alarm over the environmental impacts of fossil fuel investments. The use of comparative emissions data strengthens the argument against the project, presenting a compelling case for those concerned about climate change.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Australian energy companyWoodsidewill spend $18bn on a new liquified natural gas (LNG) project in the US that one advocacy group said would add 1.6bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its 40-year life.

Climate advocates said the announcement, made the week before Woodside’s annual general meeting, would put further pressure on the company aftera major rebuke from shareholderslast year over its emissions plan.

Woodside’s chief executive, Meg O’Neill, said the decision to invest in the Louisiana project was a historic moment and would turn the company into a “global LNG powerhouse”.

Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

The project was expected to cost US$17.5bn (A$27bn), with investment company Stonepeak also investing US$5.7bn (A$8.8bn).

Will van de Pol, chief executive of corporate climate advocacy group Market Forces, said Woodside had committed to a project “that would export harmful gas until the 2070s”.

Market Forces estimated the project would add 1.6bn tonnes of CO2-equivalent over its life – the equivalent of runningAustralia’s biggest coal-fired power station, Eraring, for 120 years. For context, Australia’s total annual emissions currently are 435m tonnes.

Van de Pol said Woodside investors AustralianSuper and industry super fund Hesta, “can’t wash their hands of these massive new emissions committed on their watch, and they must escalate pressure by voting against directors at Woodside’s AGM next week”.

Alex Hillman, lead analyst at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) and a former climate adviser to Woodside, said: “Investors have voiced increasing displeasure with Woodside’s climate strategy, most recently with the world’s only majority vote against a company’s climate plan at Woodside’s 2024 AGM.”

ACCR sent a formal statement to Woodside to ask shareholdersto vote against the re-election and election of directorsat next week’s AGM.

Hillman said Woodside was “doubling down on its climate strategy by proceeding with its largest-ever LNG project” and the statement would put increasing pressure on the company to listen to concerns.

The bulk of climate-related emissions from Woodside’s business come from “scope 3” emissions, which mostly occur when the company’s gas is sold and burned by its customers.

Sign up toAfternoon Update: Election 2025

Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

after newsletter promotion

These indirect emissions totalled 74.65m tonnes of CO2-equivalent (co2-e) last year,according to company disclosures.

The company’s only plan to address these was to invest US$5bn in “new energy products and lower-carbon services” by 2030, that would indirectly cut 5m tonnes of CO2-e each year.

ACCR said Woodside’s decision to go ahead with the Louisiana project would increase its annualscope 3 emissions by 27%.

A Woodside spokesperson declined to comment on the increase in scope 3 emissions identified by the advocacy groups, but said the company’s climate targets – including a 30% cut to direct emissions by 2030 – remained unchanged.

Woodside said its US$2.35bn investment in an ammonia project was a “material step” to its scope 3 investment goal which, when complete, would save 3.2 megatonnes of CO2-e each year.

AustralianSuper said it had no comment. The Guardian also approached Hesta for comment.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian