Woodside’s ‘Carbon Bomb’ Gas Project Faces Federal Court Challeng 2026

The Woodside gas project, a massive liquefied natural gas venture in Western Australia, has been described as a “carbon bomb” and is now facing a landmark federal court challenge from climate and rock art advocates. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (Fara) are concurrently arguing that the environment minister’s approval of the North West Shelf extension fails to properly consider emissions and threats to the ancient Murujuga rock art complex.

What Is the Woodside North West Shelf Gas Project?

Woodside’s North West Shelf gas export project is one of the largest in the world. Located near Karratha, the facility processes natural gas for overseas shipping. In 2024, the Albanese government approved an extension that allows operations until 2070. Environmental groups estimate the project could release about 4 billion tonnes of CO₂ – equivalent to roughly ten years of Australia’s annual emissions.

Why Are Rock Art Advocates Involved?

The gas plant sits adjacent to the Murujuga Indigenous rock art complex, home to more than one million petroglyphs dating back 50,000 years, including the oldest known image of a human face. Fara argues that emissions and industrial activity could damage this irreplaceable cultural heritage. A UN special rapporteur has been allowed to intervene to advise the court on Australia’s international climate obligations.

Key Arguments in the Federal Court Case

Justice Catherine Button is hearing the case in Melbourne. The ACF’s chief executive Adam Bandt stated: “The minister made the wrong decision… significant factors including climate change need to be taken into account.” Key arguments include:

• The minister failed to consider how greenhouse gas emissions from the gas plant would be a “substantial cause” of damage to protected environments.
• The approval lacked sufficient detail about the actual emissions that would be generated.
• Australia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and international climate law were not properly weighed.

Comparison: Woodside Project vs. Australia’s Annual Emissions

Broader Implications for Australia’s Environment Law

This case is a significant test of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. If the court finds the minister’s decision invalid, it could set a precedent requiring all future fossil fuel approvals to undergo rigorous emissions and climate impact assessments. Conservationists hope the ruling will force the government to align gas project decisions with the nation’s climate goals.

What’s Next for the Case?

Hearings are expected to run for several weeks. The UN special rapporteur’s intervention adds international weight to the climate argument. Meanwhile, Woodside maintains the project is essential for energy security and has been legally approved.

FAQ