Woodside Petroleum

Woodside Petroleum is Australia’s largest producer of gas, and is pursuing massive expansion plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production can proceed. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”

It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside is pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals, such as the massive and highly controversial Scarborough gas project. Many Australian financial institutions continue to support Woodside and its climate-wrecking projects.

Almost every super fund in Australia invests members’ retirement savings in Woodside, and at least 27 Australian and international banks—including ANZ and Westpac—have provided finance to the company since 2018. Many of these financial institutions claim to support the Paris Agreement and net zero emissions by 2050, yet continue to support a company pursuing plans consistent with the failure of these goals.

Woodside is undermining a stable climate future by pursuing new oil and gas projects. Our super funds and banks must stop investing in Woodside and its climate-wrecking projects and plans now.

See if your super fund has ruled out Woodside

See which banks have loaned to Woodside

TAKE ACTION!

Tell your super fund to stop investing in Woodside and its climate-wrecking expansion plans

Super fund*
Name*
First Last
Email Address*
Hidden
All funds (excluding ethical funds and targeted emails)
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to your super fund*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end, and the salutation to your super fund will also be added to the top)
I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Great news! Your super fund does not invest in Woodside or Santos.
Media Super has merged with Cbus. Please select Cbus from the drop-down list to send them a message.
Hidden
Message to Active Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Active Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Active Super, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Active Super’s Accelerator/High Growth option has the fourth highest exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Active Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to AMP
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to AMP*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear AMP, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that AMP’s MySuper 1970’s option has the fourth highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Australian Retirement Trust (QSuper & Sunsuper)
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Australian Retirement Trust (formerly QSuper and Sunsuper)*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Australian Retirement Trust (ART), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that ART’s Lifecycle Balanced Pool option has one of the highest exposures to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was also higher than Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to AustralianSuper
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to AustralianSuper*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear AustralianSuper, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows AustralianSuper’s Balanced option sold down more than 40% of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. While I would like to acknowledge this as a positive step towards AustralianSuper ditching companies expanding fossil fuels, the disclosures also reveal this option has increased its stake in Woodside more than 14 times over! Market Forces estimates about half of these shares were not attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, but rather an active decision made by AustralianSuper to massively increase its stake in Woodside.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why has AustralianSuper changed its tune on Woodside and suddenly bought up so many shares in this climate pariah? This move flies in the face of AustralianSuper’s net zero by 2050 commitment and support for the Paris climate goals. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Woodside has recently confirmed its intention to continue pursuing the monstrous Browse offshore gas basin by way of publishing its final environmental impact statement.[6] Browse is bigger, more polluting, and would operate even longer than the already out of line Scarborough project. How can AustralianSuper continue to support a company that continues to recklessly undermine global climate ambitions? If AustralianSuper is serious about its own climate commitments, then I demand the fund make a statement publicly denouncing Scarborough, Browse, and all other proposed new oil and gas projects, and divesting from the company unless it drops all new oil and gas field development plans for good. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to fully divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ [6] https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/woodside-releases-final-environmental-report-on-browse-lng-project-c-8249002 Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Aware Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Aware Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Aware Super, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Aware Super’s High Growth option has a higher exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Aware Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to BT Financial Group
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to BT Financial Group*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear BT, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that BT’s Panorama option has a higher exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Why are you overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Cbus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Cbus*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Cbus, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Cbus’ Growth (MySuper) option has a higher than average exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] This is in spite of your stranded asset framework, which should be reducing exposure to climate-wrecking companies like Santos. Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was double Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Colonial First State
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Colonial First State*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Colonial First State (CFS), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows CFS’ FirstChoice Wholesale Growth option increased its Santos shareholding by more than 6% across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Most alarmingly, however, the disclosures also reveal this option has increased its stake in Woodside more than six times over! Market Forces estimates nearly half of these shares were not attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, but rather an active decision made by CFS to massively increase its stake in Woodside.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why has CFS bought up so many shares in this climate pariah? This move flies in the face of the fund’s 2030 and 2050 climate commitments and apparent claim of alignment with the Paris climate goals. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Woodside has recently confirmed its intention to continue pursuing the monstrous Browse offshore gas basin by way of publishing its final environmental impact statement.[6] Browse is bigger, more polluting, and would operate even longer than the already out-of-line Scarborough project. How can CFS continue to support a company that continues to recklessly undermine global climate ambitions? If CFS is serious about its own climate commitments, then I demand the fund make a statement publicly denouncing Scarborough, Browse, and all other proposed new oil and gas projects, and divesting from the company unless it drops all new oil and gas field development plans for good. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ [6] https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/woodside-releases-final-environmental-report-on-browse-lng-project-c-8249002 Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Commonwealth Super Corp (CSC), I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that CSC’s PSS Default option has a higher exposure to Santos and Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, than these companies’ weightings on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021.[1] Why are you overexposed to these climate-wrecking companies? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Equip Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Equipsuper*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Equipsuper, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Equipsuper’s MySuper option has the third highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to HESTA
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to HESTA*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear HESTA, I am writing to you to request further information about HESTA’s investments in Woodside and Santos. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows HESTA’s Balanced Growth option sold down more than a fifth of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Although the Balanced Growth option’s stake in Woodside has increased in real terms, Market Forces estimates the option has sold down a fifth of its Woodside shares, after taking into account shares received through the Woodside-BHP Petroleum merger.[1] It is clear that engagement with Woodside and Santos has failed to stop their rampant expansion plans. Both companies are both pursuing new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Has HESTA finally realised engagement with Woodside and Santos has failed and started escalating its action at these companies to partial divestment? Is it quietly selling down shares in response to members’ concerns? Or is the fund failing to listen to members and simply playing the market with these share sales? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, as the super fund of the health and community sector I am calling on HESTA to publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Hostplus
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Hostplus*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Hostplus, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows Hostplus’ Balanced option increased its stake in Santos by more than 16% across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Further to this, the disclosures also reveal this option almost doubled its stake in Woodside. While Market Forces estimates most of these Woodside shares are attributable to the BHP Petroleum merger, Hostplus appears to also have made an active decision to purchase even more shares in this climate wrecker.[1] If this is the case, the fund has some serious explaining to do. Why is Hostplus using members’ retirement savings to buy up shares in these climate wreckers? Supporting Woodside and Santos’ oil and gas expansion plans wildly contradicts the net zero by 2050 portfolio emissions reduction target Hostplus set earlier this year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to IOOF
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to IOOF*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear IOOF, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to MLC
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to MLC*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear MLC, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that MLC’s MySuper Growth option has an above average exposure to Woodside and Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Aside from being above the average of your peers’ exposure, these exposures were also higher than Woodside and Santos’ weightings on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you overexposed to these climate-wrecking companies? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to NGS Super
Hidden
Subject
(You can edit this)
Hidden
Your message to NGS Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear NGS Super, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown NGS’ Diversified (MySuper) option has the second highest exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] This is in spite of your carbon neutral portfolio by 2030 target, and apparent plans to divest from oil and gas companies. Aside from being well above the average of your peers’ exposure, this exposure was almost double Woodside’s weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. NGS Super claims to be a leader on responsible investment, so why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? I acknowledge that you have plans to reduce investments in oil and gas companies. However, your overexposure to Santos shows you must announce these plans and put them into action now. NGS must exclude investment in all companies undermining global climate goals by expanding fossil fuels, across your entire portfolio. Recently, I also became aware that you are closing your Socially Responsible Diversified investment option, claiming that your portfolio-wide ESG integration makes this standalone option no longer necessary[2]. What will this mean for members currently in that option? Will they be reinvested in climate-wrecking companies pursuing fossil fuel expansion plans, or will you be divesting from all such companies before winding up this investment option on May 31? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[3] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[4] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[5] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[6] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. NGS should have divested from these climate wrecking companies already. But since you have not, and with the Woodside and Santos AGMs approaching, you at least have a crucial opportunity to demand these companies change course. Proposals have been put forward calling on Woodside and Santos to manage down oil and gas production in line with a net zero emissions by 2050 pathway. If you take climate action seriously, then you must vote: In favour of these ‘Capital Protection’ proposals and other climate-related shareholder proposals; Against the companies’ own climate reports; and Against the chairs of each company’s Sustainability Committee. If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/ngs-closes-socially-responsible-option-179794630 [3] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [4] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [5] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [6] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to OnePath
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to OnePath*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear OnePath, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to REST
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to REST*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Rest, I am writing to you to express my disgust at the fund’s continued investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Rest’s Core Strategy option has the highest exposure to Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] Besides this, your exposure was almost triple Santos’ weighting on the ASX 300 index at 31 December 2021. Why are you so overexposed to this climate-wrecking company? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Suncorp Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Suncorp Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Suncorp, I am writing to you to express my sincere frustration with your failure to rule out investment in Woodside and Santos. These companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. New analysis of super funds’ portfolio holdings disclosures shows that almost all of Australia’s biggest super funds are still investing in these climate-wrecking companies. What’s worse is that many funds’ exposure to Woodside and Santos is higher than these companies' weighting on the ASX 300 index! I acknowledge that you have started reducing investment in Woodside and Santos. However, you must now go further and exclude investment in all companies undermining global climate goals, across your entire portfolio. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[3] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[4] Your continued investment of my retirement savings in these companies is therefore inexcusable. Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to immediately and publicly divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to UniSuper
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to UniSuper*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear UniSuper, I was pleased to see UniSuper continuing to sell down shares in Santos and Woodside but I am concerned this trend is not guaranteed through policy. I am calling on UniSuper to tighten its fossil fuel exposure cap to ensure it won’t undo the fund’s good work in selling down climate wreckers Santos and Woodside. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosures shows UniSuper’s Balanced option sold down nearly 27% of its Santos shares across the period 31 December 2021 to 30 June 2022. Although the Balanced option’s stake in Woodside has increased in real terms, Market Forces estimates the option has sold down nearly three-quarters of its Woodside shares, after taking into account shares received through the Woodside-BHP Petroleum merger.[1] While this is great progress, UniSuper must now continue this downward trend by fully divesting from all companies expanding fossil fuels and ensuring the fossil fuel cap does not allow exposure increase. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] I am calling on UniSuper to divest completely and permanently from Santos, Woodside and all companies expanding fossil fuels. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-october-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ Sincerely,
Hidden
Message to Vision Super
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to Vision Super*
(You can edit this, too - your name will be automatically added at the end)
Dear Vision Super, I am writing to acknowledge Vision Super’s positive step of reducing investment exposure to Woodside and Santos, but ask the fund to go further and exclude any investment in companies undermining global climate goals by expanding the fossil fuel industry. Analysis of your portfolio holdings disclosure has shown that Vision Super’s Balanced Growth option has one of the lowest exposures to Woodside and Santos, as a proportion of Australian listed equities, out of the default (or largest) investment options of Australia’s biggest super funds.[1] However, given these companies are both pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and have clearly proven themselves incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so, any investment in them is unacceptable. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production projects can proceed.[2] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[3] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside and Santos are pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement,”[4] and Santos’ Barossa gas project has been described as “...an emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”[5] Further to this, Santos has recently sanctioned another project incompatible with global climate goals: the Pikka Phase 1 project. Despite the fact that Santos is currently being prosecuted in the Federal Court for allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct, as well as recently being reported to ASIC for potentially misleading remarks made at its 2022 AGM, the company claims that this project will be “net zero.” However, this “net zero” claim excludes scope 3 emissions which, historically, account for close to 90% of Santos’ emissions profile. What have you done to try and stop this and other climate-wrecking projects being pursued by Santos from going ahead? If these companies continue with their destructive and dangerous fossil fuel expansion plans, you will have no choice but to fully divest from Woodside and Santos, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://marketforces.org.au/super-funds-woodside-santos-exposure-april-2022/ [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [3] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [4] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [5] https://ieefa.org/ieefa-santos-barossa-gas-field-emissions-create-major-risks-for-shareholders/ Sincerely,
Of course I want to get updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
- Yes
Hidden
TOOK ACTION: Super - exposure to Woodside & Santos - blog post April 2022
- TOOK ACTION: Super - exposure to Woodside & Santos - blog post April 2022

The super funds failing to rule out investment in Woodside

Almost every single Australian super fund invests in Woodside, using members’ retirement savings to support its climate-wrecking projects and plans. A handful of super funds have either substantially divested from, have some form of exclusion on, or have plans to phase out oil and gas producers, meaning that we are starting to see a trickle of divestment from Woodside. However, this divestment is not happening at the scale nor pace commensurate with the climate crisis we face, and all super funds need to exclude companies like Woodside from their portfolios altogether.

Of Australia’s biggest 30 super funds by assets under management (AUM), only one has implemented an exclusion on oil and gas producers, meaning the rest of these funds are using members’ retirement savings to support Woodside’s massive expansion plans. Worse still, several super funds have voted against shareholder proposals calling on Woodside to wind up its oil and gas production in line with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement.

We have also calculated and presented the below funds’ investments in Woodside as a proportion of each fund’s total allocation to Australian listed equities (shares listed on the Australian stock market), as this allows for direct comparison between funds. Other data points, such as investment exposure as a proportion of the total fund, or dollar value of investments in these companies are incomparable because funds have different allocations to Australian listed equities and different amounts of money in the investment pool.

Has your super fund failed to rule out investment in Woodside? Check the list below and take action!

Investment exposure to Woodside and proxy voting behaviour of Australia’s biggest super funds by assets under management

wdt_ID	Fund	Investment option profiled	Investment exposure (% of Australian Equities)	Voted against wind up resolution in 2021?	Total Members	Total Assets Under Management
1	AustralianSuper	Balanced	0.17	Against	2,468,216	244.90
2	Commonwealth Super Corp	PSS Default	0.90	Not disclosed	675,701	244.80
3	Australian Retirement Trust (formed after the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper)	Balanced Pool	1.11	Split*	2,074,452	235.10
4	Aware Super	High Growth	0.72	Abstain	1,123,049	153.60
5	AMP	MySuper 1970's	1.39	Not disclosed	1,150,081	118.90
6	MLC (owned by IOOF)	MySuper Growth	1.00	Against	1,049,985	109.70
7	BT Financial Group	BT Panorama	0.81	Against	1,005,020	109.20
8	UniSuper	Balanced	0.18	Against	497,959	102.60
9	Colonial First State	FirstChoice Wholesale Growth	0.80	Split	846,980	96.90
10	REST	Core Strategy	0.96	Against	1,846,992	67.00

Holdings information as at 31 December 2021.

*Proxy voting information pertaining to Australian Retirement Trust reflects the combined voting behaviour of QSuper and Sunsuper, prior to the merger. QSuper voted against, and Sunsuper voted for, the Woodside ‘Capital Protection’ resolution in 2021.

Methodology and sources

Methodology

The scope of our analysis covers Australia’s largest 32 super funds by assets under management, according to APRA’s June 2021 fund-level superannuation statistics, Table 1 and Table 2. Where mergers between super funds have occurred since June 2021, the single merged entity is listed on the table (noting the previous fund name/s) and occupies only one position on the table, unless the merged funds remain as standalone brands with standalone policies. We identified:

Each fund’s investment exposure to Woodside Petroleum, as a proportion of its total allocation to Australian equities in its default (or largest, by AUM) investment option as at 31 December 2021, and;
How each fund voted on the Market Forces-coordinated ‘Capital Protection’ shareholder proposal at the annual general meeting (AGM) of Woodside in 2021.

Where a fund’s total allocation to Australian equities for 31 December 2021 was not disclosed or not apparent from its holdings disclosures, the option’s disclosed strategic asset allocation (or the most recent actual asset allocation, if available) was used to calculate the fund’s exposure to Woodside, as a proportion of Australian listed equities.

The information in the above table pertains to 23 of Australia’s largest 32 funds, for the following reasons:

QSuper and Sunsuper have recently merged to form Australian Retirement Trust;
HUB24 and Netwealth do not have investment options comparable to the rest of those captured in the study;
CommBank Group Super and Macquarie do not disclose total or strategic allocation to Australian equities, nor is this information apparent from its holdings disclosure. We therefore did not have enough information to analyse these funds’ investments in Woodside as a proportion of Australian listed equities, and;
IOOF, OnePath and StateWide are yet to disclose their full list of investment holdings.
NGS Super has implemented an exclusion on oil and gas producers and publicly divested from companies captured by that exclusion, including Woodside.

Where a fund’s proxy voting disclosure reads ‘Split,’ this means that the fund has voted some of its shares in different ways on the relevant proposal, for example some shares for and some against, or some abstaining and some against. In the case of QSuper and Sunsuper, both funds voted differently on the Woodside ‘Capital Protection’ resolution prior to the merger (QSuper voted against, Sunsuper voted for).

Sources

Portfolio holdings disclosures for all funds are effective as at 31 December 2021, and were sourced from each fund’s website (see below). Proxy voting information was sourced from Proxy Insight (a subscription service), or from each fund’s own proxy voting disclosure. Total allocation to Australian equities calculated from portfolio holdings disclosure unless noted below.

ACSRF
Active Super (total asset allocation to Australian equities at 31 January 2022: 32.32%)
AMP
Australian Retirement Trust
AustralianSuper
Aware Super
BT Financial Group
CareSuper (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 22%)
Catholic Super
Cbus (total asset allocation to Australian equities at 31 January 2022: 22.53%)
Colonial First State (total asset allocation to Australian equities at December 2021: 25.5%)
CommBank Group Super
Commonwealth Super Corp
Equipsuper (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 24%)
HESTA
Hostplus
LGIAsuper
Macquarie
Mercer (total asset allocation to Australian equities at December 2021: 36%)
Mine Super
MLC
NGS Super
Rest
Spirit Super
Telstra Super (strategic asset allocation to Australian equities: 22%)
UniSuper
Vision Super

TELL YOUR SUPER FUND TO RULE OUT INVESTMENT IN WOODSIDE TODAY

The banks financing Woodside’s climate-wrecking business plans

Since 2018, a number of domestic and international banks—including ANZ and Westpac—have either loaned to, or arranged finance for, Woodside and its climate-wrecking projects and plans. ANZ and Westpac claim to support the goals of net zero emissions by 2050 and the Paris Agreement. However, both of these banks have loaned money to Woodside, enabling the company to pursue oil and gas production projects consistent with the failure of these global climate goals.

Has your bank loaned to, or arranged finance for, Woodside since 2018? Check out the list below and take action!

Banks that have loaned to, or arranged finance for, Woodside since 2018

ABN AMRO
Agricultural Bank of China
ANZ
Bank of China
BNP Paribas
Chiba Bank
China Construction Bank
Citigroup Global Markets
Credit Agricole
Credit Industriel et Commercial
DBS Bank
DnB ASA
Export Development Canada
Hua Nan Commercial Bank

Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
ING
Mega International Commercial Bank
Merrill
MUFG Bank
Mizuho Bank
Morgan Stanley Australia
Scotiabank
Shinsei Bank
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC)
UBS
Westpac

Please note: This list was last updated on 11 March 2022

TAKE ACTION!

Send a message to the banks financing Woodside and tell them to stop funding climate failure

Name*
First Last
Email*
Subject
(You can edit this)
Your message to the banks
(You can edit this. The saluation will automatically added at the top and your name will be added automatically at the bottom.)
I am writing to you to express my disgust at the bank’s decision to provide finance for Australian oil and gas company Woodside Petroleum. This company is pursuing business plans consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050, and has clearly proven itself incapable of aligning with these goals and unwilling to do so. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reaching net zero emissions by 2050 means no new oil and gas production can proceed.[1] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also confirmed that limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement means “global fossil fuel production must start declining immediately and steeply.”[2] It is abundantly clear that achieving these climate goals and a stable climate future leaves no room for the expansion of the oil and gas industry. Despite this, Woodside is pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of these goals. Independent analysis has concluded that Woodside’s Scarborough-Pluto project “...represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement.”[3] Providing finance to this company (or failing to rule out future finance) is inexcusable. Woodside has clearly failed to step into line with the Paris Agreement and net zero by 2050. In fact, Woodside has been continuing to claim that increasing LNG exports would reduce global emissions by displacing coal in Asia, while keeping hidden a report that contradicted this claim.[4] I therefore demand that you immediately and publicly rule out future finance for Woodside, and all other companies expanding the scale of the fossil fuel industry. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 [2] https://productiongap.org/2021report/ [3] https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2021/warming-western-australia-how-woodsides-scarborough-and-pluto-project-undermines-the-paris-agreement/ [4] https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/woodside-contradicts-csiro-report-debunking-key-climate-claims-20220307-p5a2d5.html Sincerely,
I want updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
- I want updates about this campaign from Market Forces!
Hidden
TOOK ACTION: Banks - Woodside campaign web page - March 2022
- TOOK ACTION: Banks - Woodside campaign web page - March 2022

Your email will be sent to ABN AMRO, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ), Bank of China, BNP Paribas, Chiba Bank, China Construction Bank, Citigroup, Crédit Agricole, Credit Industriel et Commercial, DBS Bank, Export Development Canada, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), ING, MUFG Bank, Mizuho Bank, Morgan Stanley Australia, Scotiabank, Shinsei Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), UBS, and Westpac.

Planning for climate catastrophe: the climate-wrecking projects and expansion plans Woodside is pursuing

Woodside is pursuing massive new oil and gas projects consistent with the failure of the Paris Agreement, including the monstrous Scarborough gas field off the coast of Western Australia (WA), and the associated Pluto Train 2 liquified natural gas (LNG) processing plant. In late 2021, the company also agreed to take over BHP’s entire petroleum business, which would roughly double Woodside’s oil and gas production capacity and make it a global top ten independent oil and gas company. This takeover will be voted on at the company’s 2021 annual general meeting (AGM), and, if it goes ahead, this means Woodside could be spending around $26 billion on expansionary oil and gas projects by 2030 that are incompatible with the Paris climate goals.

Despite the urgent need for fossil fuel production to begin declining in line with global climate goals, Woodside plans to significantly increase the combined total of Woodside and BHP’s oil and gas production over the next five years. Beyond clearly contravening the IEA’s key conclusion that there is no room for new oil and gas production projects in the pathway to net zero emissions by 2050, a number of independent analyses of new oil and gas production projects being pursued by Woodside reveals how significantly out of line they are with global climate goals. Carbon tracker, for example, has found that Woodside’s proposed Pluto Train 2 facility is not even financially competitive in a catastrophic 2.7°C global warming scenario, let alone in a world where we achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.

Woodside plans to develop one of the most polluting projects Australia has ever seen: the massive Scarborough gas field off the coast of WA and its associated LNG processing facility, Pluto Train 2.

Woodside’s proposed Scarborough gas and Pluto LNG project could result in the emissions equivalent of 15 coal-fired power stations running for 30 years, threaten to accelerate degradation of the Murujuga rock art (proposed for World Heritage listing) due to industrial emissions, and would also cause significant impacts to the local marine environment. Independent analysis has concluded the Scarborough-Pluto combined project “…represents a bet against the world implementing the Paris Agreement”.

Gas flaring at Woodside’s Pluto LNG processing facility. Image courtesy of the Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA).

Gas flaring at Woodside’s Pluto LNG processing facility. Image courtesy of the Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA).

Sangomar is a new oil field proposed for development off the coast of Senegal. In 2021, Woodside acquired FAR Ltd’s interest in the project, increasing the company’s stake in Sangomar to 82%. Woodside is hoping for production to start in 2023, with the first phase aiming to produce 230 million barrels of climate-wrecking oil.

Carbon Tracker identified the $4.6bn Sangomar project as incompatible with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS)—a pathway that only aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2070—let alone a net zero by 2050 scenario. The Sangomar project is yet another example of Woodside’s reckless pursuit of fossil fuel projects that undermine global climate goals.

In 2021, Woodside, agreed to take over BHP’s entire petroleum business. Aside from roughly doubling Woodside’s oil and gas production capacity, this proposed takeover would place Woodside amongst the biggest oil and gas producers in the world. Some of these proposed projects Woodside may take on include:

BHP’s share in Scarborough-Pluto
The Trion oil field, located in the Gulf of Mexico. If this project goes ahead, it would add production capacity equal to an extra 11% on top of Woodside and BHP’s combined 2020 production levels
The Browse basin, located off the coast of WA. This gas field could add further capacity equal to 14% above Woodside and BHP’s combined 2020 production if it goes ahead

Trashing the environment and destroying cultural heritage

Woodside has a track record of causing environmental damage and dodging accountability for it. In 2017, it was revealed that Woodside was responsible for an oil spill the previous year, which leaked 10,500 litres of oil into the ocean off the coast of WA over a period of two months. This spill was kept secret by the offshore oil and gas regulator, NOPSEMA (National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority).

Looking forward, Woodside continues to shirk responsibility for the emissions from its climate-wrecking business activities. The company has committed to achieving net zero ‘scope 1 and 2’ (or ‘operational’) emissions by 2050, despite these emissions only accounting for approximately 10% of the company’s overall emissions profile. Much of the remaining 90% of Woodside’s emissions—its ‘scope 3’ emissions—come from customers burning its oil and gas for energy use. The chart (Figure 1) shows Woodside’s totally inadequate 2025 emissions reduction target (a 15% reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions) has almost no impact on the company’s estimated emissions pathway, which is actually expected to increase due to its increasing production plans.

New Hope Corp's New Acland coal mine, February 2016

Figure 1: The estimated impact of Woodside’s 2025 emissions reduction target vs. its estimated emissions profile

Woodside’s claim of support for the Paris climate goals appears misleading, in light of the fact that the company’s increased production plans are likely to see its emissions increase over the next five to ten years. Taking Woodside’s own production projections—applying conservative assumptions where required and assuming Woodside fully implements its emissions targets—our analysis shows that Woodside and BHP Petroleum’s combined annual emissions (from production, excluding Woodside’s traded LNG business) are likely to increase by at least 11% from 2020 to 2027.

Furthermore, despite repeated claims from Woodside (and the broader gas industry) that increasing LNG exports would reduce global emissions by displacing coal in Asia, a CSIRO study—commissioned and then withheld from the public by Woodside—contradicts this claim, finding increasing Australian gas supply could prolong coal, displace renewables and actually increase emissions in Asia.

One of the many pieces of rock art at Murujuga. Image courtesy of CCWA.

Woodside’s regard for Indigenous cultural heritage is no better than its consideration for the environment. In the 1980’s, the construction of the Karratha gas plant—a joint venture owned and operated by Woodside but co-owned with BHP, Shell, Chevron, BP, and Japan Australia LNG—saw the destruction of 5,000 pieces of Indigenous rock art.

Worse still, Woodside’s destructive activities at Murujuga (also known as the Burrup Peninsula) continue to this very day. Industrial emissions from its Pluto 2 LNG processing facility threaten to accelerate the degradation of the Murujuga rock art—a 40,000 year-old collection of rock art containing Indigenous cultural and spiritual knowledge—undermining efforts to achieve world heritage listing for the site. Woodside’s blatant disregard for Indigenous cultural heritage has been dubbed “Juukan Gorge in slow motion,” a reference to Rio Tinto’s destruction of the 46,000 year-old rock shelters in WA’s Pilbara region.

For more information on Woodside’s despicable track record on environmental, social and cultural heritage damage, check out the Woodside Come Clean web page.

LATEST WOODSIDE NEWS

Spirit Super must stop new oil and gas projects or divest from the companies pursuing them

Dec 12, 2022

13 December 2022 Spirit Super updated its climate targets this year, aiming to reduce both the fossil fuel reserves and carbon emissions in its investment portfolio by 50% by the end of this decade. Yet the fund remains invested in companies seeking to massively...

Westpac sees climate impacts, increases fossil fuel exposure

Nov 8, 2022

8 November, 2022 Westpac, which has committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 and the goals of the Paris Agreement, revealed an 11% increase in FY22 of its overall exposure to fossil fuels, with the increases attributed to customers in the coal rail transportation, LNG...

Big super funds quietly selling down shares in Santos and Woodside

Oct 18, 2022

18 October 2022 The latest round of mandatory super fund disclosures reveal that most of Australia’s biggest super funds are selling shares in climate wrecking oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside. Some funds, however, have significantly increased their stake in...

HESTA asks the impossible of oil and gas producers Woodside, Santos and Origin, rather than divesting

Sep 6, 2022

6 September, 2022 In an attempt to justify continued investment in climate wrecking oil and gas producers Woodside, Santos and Origin, HESTA announced today it had asked the impossible of those companies, requesting they demonstrate how their new or proposed fossil...

HESTA’s investments in Santos and Woodside may be a breach of the law

Aug 8, 2022

8 August, 2022 The Environmental Defenders Office has sent HESTA a legal letter on behalf of HESTA members Rod and Sue. The letter states that HESTA’s investments in Santos and Woodside could be in breach of the fund’s obligations to manage climate risk....

Is your super fund’s ‘sustainable’ option invested in companies expanding the fossil fuel industry?

Jul 21, 2022

21 July 2022 In response to member concerns over their super fund’s investments in climate wrecking companies, funds often point members to their ‘sustainable’ investment options. However, new analysis from Market Forces reveals some of these options are failing to...

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Page last updated March 2022. Unless otherwise specified, all currencies are in AUD.

Disclaimer

The information provided by Market Forces does not constitute financial advice. The information is presented in order to inform people motivated by environmental concerns and take actions based on those concerns. Market Forces is organising data for environmental ends.

The information and actions provided by Market Forces do not account for any individual’s personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It should not be used, relied upon, or treated as a substitute for specific professional advice.

Market Forces recommends all users obtain their own independent professional advice before making any decision relating to their particular requirements or circumstances. Switching super funds may have unintended financial consequences.

Market Forces does not receive funding from any super funds or other financial institutions.

For more information about Market Forces, please visit the about page of the site. To see how we profile super funds go to the methodology page.

TAKE ACTION!

All funds (excluding ethical funds and targeted emails)

Message to Active Super

Message to AMP

Message to Australian Retirement Trust (QSuper & Sunsuper)

Message to AustralianSuper

Message to Aware Super

Message to BT Financial Group

Message to Cbus

Message to Colonial First State

Message to Commonwealth Super Corp / PSS

Message to Equip Super

Message to HESTA

Message to Hostplus

Message to IOOF

Message to MLC

Message to NGS Super

Message to OnePath

Message to REST

Message to Suncorp Super

Message to UniSuper

Message to Vision Super

The super funds failing to rule out investment in Woodside

Investment exposure to Woodside and proxy voting behaviour of Australia’s biggest super funds by assets under management

Methodology and sources

The banks financing Woodside’s climate-wrecking business plans

Banks that have loaned to, or arranged finance for, Woodside since 2018

TAKE ACTION!

Planning for climate catastrophe: the climate-wrecking projects and expansion plans Woodside is pursuing

Trashing the environment and destroying cultural heritage

LATEST WOODSIDE NEWS

Spirit Super must stop new oil and gas projects or divest from the companies pursuing them

Westpac sees climate impacts, increases fossil fuel exposure

Big super funds quietly selling down shares in Santos and Woodside

HESTA asks the impossible of oil and gas producers Woodside, Santos and Origin, rather than divesting

HESTA’s investments in Santos and Woodside may be a breach of the law

Is your super fund’s ‘sustainable’ option invested in companies expanding the fossil fuel industry?