However, the final federal environmental impact statement for Browse says burying the reservoir CO2 was presently considered a “high-risk, high-cost” option and while still being looked at was not part of the base plan.

Woodside estimates that not burying the CO2 from the reservoir would increase emissions over the life of the Browse project by up to 107 million tonnes which is 33 times the company’s direct emissions in 2021.

Woodside was asked to explain the discrepancy between O’Neill’s statement and its environmental submission but did not respond.

A Woodside spokeswoman said the Browse joint venture – that includes Shell, BP, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Mitsui – continued to evaluate options to reduce direct emissions including burial of reservoir CO2.

In August the federal government awarded Woodside the right to assess the viability of carbon storage in the Calliance field.

Woodside’s submission said gas from Browse would contribute to the Paris Agreement target of restricting global warming to 1.5 degrees by displacing more polluting coal.

Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility analyst Alex Hillman said Woodside’s claim was “not just alarming but certifiably insane.”

“The International Energy Agency clearly states that no new oil and gas projects can be approved in a 1.5 degree scenario,” he said.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.