One of Australia’s most talked-about and least financially viable gas developments is located in the deep blue silence of the Browse Basin, nearly 300 kilometers off the coast of Kimberley. The depth of the water is high. The reserves are genuine. Additionally, an increasing number of energy analysts believe that the economics are somewhere between challenging and detrimental.
Woodside Energy’s suggested The AUD37 billion Browse gas project, which calls for a drilling platform, two floating production facilities, about fifty gas wells, and a 900-kilometer pipeline back to Karratha, has been lurking on Australia’s energy agenda for decades without ever quite making it commercially viable. The math didn’t cooperate every time a new development strategy was proposed. The pipeline plan was the first to be abandoned. Then James Price Point—too expensive. Then floating LNG, which was thought to be too dangerous. Now that the project is back on the table, energy analysts are paying much more attention.
According to a report published in November 2025 by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Woodside would have to make about AUD7.80 per gigajoule in order to break even on Browse’s project contribution. When expressed in terms of international LNG, that amounts to nearly USD 8 per million British thermal units supplied to North Asian consumers. The leading rival in that market, Qatar, can supply LNG for between USD 3.80 and USD 5.80 per MMBtu. It is difficult to explain away that gap.
The figures create a different kind of worry on the domestic front. The cost of piped browse gas to Perth would be about AUD9 per gigajoule, which is about four times the price at which Western Australian producers currently extract gas from the ground. Additionally, Browse would either raise prices or Woodside would be selling into the domestic market at a loss because it is higher than the current WA spot prices. In an investor presentation, neither result looks good.
One of the more direct voices has been Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial, who claims that Browse’s cost structure “leaves us with a questionable set of economics.” In the cautious world of LNG finance, that kind of language from an industry analyst amounts to a raised eyebrow and a very pointed question, but it’s not dramatic.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that all of this is taking place in the context of an increasingly hostile global LNG environment. With a surge of new US export capacity threatening to lower prices for years, markets are heading toward oversupply. The CEO of TotalEnergies, which isn’t exactly staying out of the LNG expansion game, has expressed worry that if American projects are completed on schedule, a supply glut may continue. Traditional Asian markets’ long-term demand forecasts are also declining, and the growth of emerging markets is up against competition from declining renewable energy prices. With some of the highest cost structures in the world’s LNG industry, Browse would likely enter that market in the early 2030s at the latest.
Then there is the carbon issue, which is now a financial issue in addition to an environmental one. According to current Australian regulations, the estimated 10% carbon dioxide content of the Browse gas fields must be completely offset from the first day of production. A carbon capture and storage facility has been suggested by Woodside to address some of this, but CCS has a persistent history of poor performance. Chevron’s adjacent Gorgon facility, which has cost AUD3.5 billion since its establishment, only achieved 30% of its goal in 2023–2024. IEEFA projects that expenses could increase by over 9% on top of an already tight budget if Browse’s CCS facility performs similarly.
In the meantime, Woodside exercised its preemptive rights to purchase PetroChina’s 10.67 percent share in the Browse joint venture for USD 225 million, a move that garnered attention this week. The ruling maintains Woodside’s authority over the course and timing of the project. The market is becoming increasingly concerned about whether it also maintains the project’s logic.
