North West Shelf Gas Project Extended to 2070

Post by : Avinab Raana

Photo : X / The West Australian

A Controversial Greenlight

The Australian government has greenlighted the extension of its largest gas export project, the North West Shelf, pushing its operations out to 2070. While this decision secures energy revenue and jobs for decades, it has stirred fierce backlash from climate activists, environmental groups, and Indigenous communities. The extension comes with conditions meant to limit certain emissions and partially protect heritage sites, especially Indigenous rock art near the Murujuga peninsula. What remains deeply contested is whether these conditions go far enough to protect the climate and cultural legacy.

What the Extension Entails

The extension allows the North West Shelf project centered around the Karratha gas plant that processes and liquefies natural gas for export to continue operations well beyond the originally projected end date. The Karratha facility, operating since the 1980s, plays a central role in the region’s economy and Australia’s energy exports. The approval attaches more than forty conditions relating to air emissions, particularly for nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide, requiring significant reductions by set milestones in 2030 and again deeper cuts by 2061.

The conditions also include monitoring systems for industrial emissions that might damage heritage rock art. The protections are described as “partial,” because while the project must avoid moving or damaging physical rock art objects, gases generated by the plant (which many fear may degrade or erode rock surfaces over time) are not fully prohibited.

Indigenous Heritage Under Threat

Murujuga, on the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia, is home to over a million petroglyphs, ancient carvings that represent tens of thousands of years of Indigenous art and connection to country. These engravings are globally unique, including some of the oldest known human face imagery. Traditional owners and custodians have long raised alarm that industrial emissions and climate stressors could erode or otherwise damage this rock art.

The government’s “partial protection” declaration acknowledges the significance of these sites. Traditional owner groups have sought full protection under heritage laws to prevent any kind of damage, including gaseous emissions. However, the protection declaration explicitly excludes damage from industrial airborne chemicals, leaving a major gap. This has prompted feelings among Indigenous communities that cultural heritage is being sacrificed for economic gain.

Climate Concerns and Emissions Debate

Critics argue the project extension is a de facto “carbon bomb,” locking in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades. Emission estimates associated with the extended operations, including the greenhouse gases released when exported gas is burned overseas, run into tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂-equivalent every year. For many, this is incompatible with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and global efforts to limit warming.

Government projections target a 60 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2030 and a 90 percent reduction by 2061. Similar targets apply to sulphur dioxide. While these reductions are ambitious, many climate experts question whether enforcement, measurement, and actual practice will match the promise. They argue that emission caps and monitoring are necessary but not sufficient to offset the broader climate impact of continuing fossil fuel export operations.

Government Justifications: Jobs and Energy Security

Supporters of the decision emphasize economic stability, job preservation, and energy export revenues. The gas export industry has long contributed substantially to regional employment, local economies, and government income. For the government, extending the North West Shelf project ensures continued economic benefits, particularly in more remote northern Australia where alternative industries are less developed.

Energy security also plays into the justification. While Australia is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, domestic supply, cost, and market stability are ongoing concerns. Maintaining and extending operations at major gas processing and export facilities can help ensure steady investment and infrastructure upkeep. The government argues that with strict conditions, it can balance economic and environmental interests.

Heritage Protection Laws and Their Limits

Heritage protection in Australia includes multiple legislative tools, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. Traditional owners have used this act to seek protection of cultural sites under threat. After more than three years of activism, the environment minister made a declaration that codifies certain protections over rock art in Murujuga.

However, the limitations in that protection specifically the exclusion of damage by gaseous emissions are seen as a major shortcoming. Some legal experts and community leaders believe that cultural heritage law should also account for intangible impacts and cumulative damage, not only physical disturbance or removal. This legal tension highlights a gap between heritage law’s traditional focus and modern industrial realities such as air pollution and climate exposure.

Opposition and Conservation Reactions

Environmental groups, Indigenous activists, and political opposition voices have not held back their criticism. Many describe the extension as a betrayal of climate promises, arguing it undermines Australia’s credibility in international climate forums. They also point out that while on paper the emission reductions are significant, in practice weak regulation or delayed enforcement could reduce their impact.

Climate campaigners have called the project a “carbon bomb,” warning of long-term negative consequences. For many, the decision signals that economic imperatives are taking precedence over climate risk and cultural preservation. Some international commentators have also expressed concern that such decisions may put pressure on other nations to similarly prioritize fossil fuel revenues over heritage and environment.

Balancing Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Values

The decision reflects a classic tension in policy: how to balance economic and community wellbeing with environmental responsibility and cultural preservation. For many Aboriginal groups, the Murujuga rock art is not just heritage it is living connection to ancestors, land, and identity. Many argue that once lost, those cultural expressions cannot be replaced.

Meanwhile, for regional economies, the gas project means steady jobs, infrastructure investment, and economic certainty. The conditions attached emission caps, monitoring, heritage declarations are intended to provide some balance. Whether that balance is robust or merely symbolic is the central question that stakeholders are now asking.

Milestones and Compliance Monitoring

Key to assessing the effectiveness of the extension will be how the government enforces compliance. How emission reductions are measured, how monitoring is conducted, whether citizen and indigenous oversight is included, and how transparent reports will be are all crucial.

Timelines are set: reductions of nitrogen oxides by 2030 and deeper cuts by 2061; similar scheduling for sulphur dioxide. Additionally, conditions require ongoing monitoring of air emissions that might damage heritage, but clarity is needed on how responsive regulators will be to Indigenous claims of harm.

Global Climate Context and International Pressure

Australia is not isolated in this debate. As countries worldwide aim for net zero emissions, decisions like this one are watched closely. International bodies and climate scientists often cite fossil fuel export clauses and clearance extensions as indicators of whether a country is aligning policy with climate targets or drifting from them.

For Pacific island nations and others already experiencing climate impacts, each extension of gas extraction and export raises concerns. Australia’s stances are particularly visible, given its global role in energy markets. Decisions made today could affect its diplomatic credibility in climate negotiations, its attractiveness to ESG-oriented investors, and its own domestic climate resilience.

Alternative Paths: Renewable Energy and Transition

Many critics suggest that rather than doubling down on fossil fuel export infrastructure, Australia could accelerate investment in renewable energy, green hydrogen, carbon capture technologies, and energy efficiency. Transition options are complex and expensive, but proponents argue they offer longer-term stability and fewer cultural and climate risks.

Indigenous communities and conservation groups often argue that heritage preservation and climate responsibility demand more than mitigated fossil fuel projects. Some argue that partial protections are inadequate, and that alternative economic opportunities in renewable sectors could deliver employment and revenue with lower environmental and heritage costs.

Public Opinion and Political Risk

Polls suggest growing public concern in Australia about climate action and preserving heritage. Many young people, environmentalists, Indigenous groups, and scientific communities view the extension as moving in the wrong direction. Political parties may face backlash in elections, especially in regions affected by the project or where cultural heritage is a strong issue.

The decision places political risk on the government. For supporters, the challenge will be delivering on condition compliance, ensuring transparency, and avoiding impacts that fuel opposition. For detractors, this is a litmus test for whether policy matches rhetoric when it comes to climate promises and Indigenous rights.

A Moment of Reckoning

The extension of the North West Shelf gas project to 2070 with partial protection for Indigenous rock art is a watershed moment for Australia. It confronts issues of climate responsibility, economic stability, heritage respect, and legal jurisdiction all at once. How Australia moves forward will shape both its domestic future and its position on the international stage.

If the emission reductions are real, compliance is strong, and Indigenous voices are heard, the decision may stand as a model of compromise in a difficult context. But if emissions creep, heritage harm cannot be accounted for, or if promises remain words on paper, critics may be proven right in calling this decision a betrayal.

Australia’s next steps both in implementation and in honesty may determine if this becomes a legacy of balanced policy or one of missed opportunity. The world is watching, for the sake of climate, heritage, and justice.

North West Shelf, Gas extension Australia, Indigenous rock art