New analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation suggests A$40.6bn or 83% of the total contract value of Woodside's Browse climate-damaging gas project will likely go to companies headquartered overseas.
The analysis reconstructed six major components of the Browse proposal and found the companies likely to secure principal tier-1 contracts were mostly based outside Australia.
"Woodside's own modelling assumes less than half the project's expenditure would occur in Australia - and even that domestic share depends on how contracts are awarded," said ACF's senior strategist of corporate responsibility, Erik Moore, who authored the analysis.
"Woodside's A$48.7bn figure is only an estimate of the project's gross lifetime cost, not its domestic economic value, with the company's own estimates suggesting just 44% will be spent here in Australia, while more than half ends up overseas.
"This is not a win for Australia. Browse would largely be contracted overseas, with most of the local jobs created being short-term FIFO arrangements.
"Browse's relatively limited economic benefit contrasts with the serious environmental harm the project would do to Scott Reef, the Great Barrier Reef and beyond.
"Australia does not need industries that externalise environmental damage for profits."
The analysis found Woodside's claimed economic benefit calculation includes the cost of developing, operating and decommissioning Browse over the project's life, but does not show which companies win the contracts or where the revenue ends up.
Woodside wants to drill up to 50 new gas wells near Scott Reef, 300 kilometres off the Kimberley coast in WA, and construct a 900-kilometre underwater pipeline to send the gas to the North West Shelf gas hub for processing before exporting it.
ACF's analysis used Browse tender information where available, Woodside procurement precedents and Australian LNG/offshore comparators.
