Buru Energy Seeks EPA Approval for Kimberley Gas Project Targeting 2029

Key Points

• Buru Energy has referred its Rafael conventional gas project in Western Australia’s Kimberley region to the state’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for environmental assessment.
• The proposed development is located in the Canning Basin, approximately 85 kilometres south of Derby, and would process gas from two co-located production wells.
• The company says the facility could produce up to 300 tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per day, equivalent to approximately 16–17 terajoules of energy.
• Buru Energy expects the project to strengthen regional energy security, reduce reliance on supplies transported from other locations and potentially serve customers beyond the Kimberley.
• The company estimates that the Rafael project could supply a substantial share of the region’s liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) requirements.
• Environmental campaigners have raised concerns that the development could facilitate future hydraulic fracturing, despite the current proposal being described as a conventional gas project.
• Buru Energy has rejected claims that Rafael is intended to enable fracking, saying any future proposal involving the technique would require a separate environmental referral and approval process.
• The debate comes amid wider concerns over a proposed exploration programme in the Canning Basin, which could involve up to 20 wells and has attracted a reported 8,000 appeals.
• The company expects an EPA decision by the end of 2026 and hopes to begin gas production in early 2029, subject to the necessary approvals and development requirements.

Australian News Today (ANT) October 12, 2026 – Buru Energy has referred its proposed Rafael conventional gas project in Western Australia’s Kimberley region to the state’s Environmental Protection Authority for assessment, beginning a formal stage in the process that could determine whether the development proceeds. The company says the project could supply locally produced energy to meet regional electricity demand for the first time, with production targeted for early 2029. The proposal involves processing conventional gas from two production wells in the Canning Basin, approximately 85 kilometres south of Derby. However, the development is also attracting scrutiny from environmental campaigners, who fear that expanding gas operations in the region could create a pathway for future hydraulic fracturing. Buru Energy disputes that characterisation and says the Rafael proposal is separate from any potential fracking activity.

What Does Buru Energy’s Rafael Gas Project Propose?

The Rafael development would establish a compact, modular gas-processing facility at an expanded well site in the Kimberley’s Canning Basin. According to the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority’s project description, the facility would process conventional gas from two production wells, with separate flowlines connecting the wells to the processing system.

The planned infrastructure includes gas separation, condensate stabilisation, LPG recovery, small-scale LNG processing, storage, loading facilities, power generation, utilities and supporting site services. The proposal also includes arrangements for preparing the resulting products for road transport.

The distinction between a project referral and a final environmental approval is important. Buru Energy has referred the proposal to the EPA, but the referral does not itself authorise the company to begin construction or production. The regulator must first determine whether the proposal requires environmental impact assessment and, if so, the appropriate level of scrutiny.

The EPA’s public consultation period ran from 5 October to 11 October 2026. That period has now closed, and the regulator’s next step is to consider the referral and any comments received before determining the assessment pathway.

The decision will therefore be an important procedural milestone, but it should not be confused with a final decision granting every approval needed to develop the project.

How Could Rafael Change Energy Supply Across the Kimberley?

Buru Energy says the project could reduce the region’s reliance on energy transported from outside Western Australia, including supplies originating in Karratha, Perth, Darwin and overseas markets in Asia.

Executive chairman David Maxwell described Rafael as the only proven conventional gas and liquids resource in the greater Kimberley region. He said the development offered an opportunity to supply the area with locally produced gas and LPG.

According to Maxwell, the Kimberley currently uses between six and 13 terajoules of energy a day for power generation, depending on the season. Buru says the proposed facility could produce up to 300 tonnes of LNG daily, equivalent to approximately 16–17 terajoules of energy.

The company’s production estimate suggests that the facility could have the capacity to supply the region’s gas requirements, although actual supply would depend on the project’s eventual operating performance, customer demand and the arrangements for distributing the products.

Maxwell also said the company intended to supply markets beyond the Kimberley, including the northern Pilbara. He estimated that Rafael could provide approximately one-quarter to one-third of the Kimberley’s LPG demand.

These are the company’s stated production and supply expectations rather than confirmed outcomes. The eventual contribution to regional energy security will depend on regulatory decisions, project development, infrastructure and commercial arrangements.

What Benefits Does Buru Energy Expect From Local Gas Production?

Buru Energy has presented Rafael as a way to improve the reliability of energy supplies while reducing dependence on transported fuel.

Under the company’s proposal, gas would be processed close to the production wells rather than being sourced entirely from distant locations. The company argues that local production could improve energy security and offer a cost-effective supply option for regional customers.

Maxwell has also identified the potential for reduced road traffic as a benefit. The extent of any reduction would depend on how much existing transport activity could be replaced by local production and how the finished LNG, LPG and condensate would be moved from the facility.

The proposed plant would still require transport arrangements for its products. Consequently, the overall effect on road traffic would depend on the balance between incoming energy supplies, outgoing product deliveries and other operational movements.

For regional electricity users, the central question will be whether Rafael can deliver reliable supplies at competitive prices. The referral itself does not establish that electricity bills will fall or that all existing energy sources will be replaced.

The project also involves more than supplying electricity-generation fuel. The planned production of LPG and condensate could provide additional products for regional and external markets, depending on the facility’s final configuration and commercial arrangements.

Why Has the Rafael Project Raised Concerns About Fracking?

Although Buru Energy describes Rafael as a conventional gas development, environmental campaigners argue that the proposal must be considered in the context of the company’s wider activities and ambitions in the Canning Basin.

Conventional gas is generally extracted through drilling and pumping, whereas hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, involves injecting fluid under pressure to create fractures in underground rock formations and improve the flow of oil or gas.

The distinction matters because the two methods have different operational requirements and environmental considerations. Buru’s current Rafael proposal is for conventional gas production, but campaigners are concerned about the possibility of further unconventional gas development in the region.

The Western Australian Government has maintained a broad prohibition on fracking across more than 98 per cent of the state, while allowing it in certain areas, including parts of the Kimberley and the Canning Basin.

The debate has intensified because another proposed development, the Valhalla Gas Exploration and Appraisal Programme, would involve drilling up to 20 exploration and appraisal wells in the basin.

According to ABC News journalists Jess Baker and Giulia Bertoglio, the EPA recommended in January 2026 that the Valhalla programme proceed subject to conditions. The recommendation attracted substantial opposition, with approximately 8,000 appeals lodged against the proposal.

The Valhalla proposal is separate from Rafael. However, its progress has contributed to a broader dispute about the future of gas exploration and fracking in the Kimberley.

What Have Environmental Campaigners Said About Rafael?

Martin Pritchard, executive director of Environs Kimberley, has argued that Rafael could create a foundation for further gas industry expansion.

Speaking to ABC Kimberley journalists Jess Baker and Natasha Clark, Pritchard described the proposal as a potential “Trojan horse for fracking”. He argued that establishing gas-processing infrastructure could make it easier for the industry to pursue additional developments across the Canning Basin.

Environs Kimberley has also pointed to Buru Energy’s investor communications, which refer to ambitions to develop the value of unconventional resources at the Yulleroo field.

In a statement published on 5 October 2026, the environmental organisation argued that Rafael should be considered alongside the company’s wider plans, rather than treated solely as an isolated conventional gas project.

The organisation’s concerns extend beyond the possibility of future fracking. Its submissions have called for scrutiny of groundwater extraction and contamination, greenhouse gas emissions, methane leakage, air quality, transport, biodiversity and the adequacy of environmental surveys.

These are issues raised by the campaign group and are not, by themselves, findings that the Rafael proposal will cause environmental damage. Their significance will depend on the evidence submitted, the regulator’s assessment and any conditions imposed if the project progresses.

Pritchard has also argued that the Kimberley should prioritise renewable energy, particularly solar generation combined with battery storage, rather than expand its reliance on gas fields.

He said the region needed to accelerate renewable energy deployment to pursue cheaper and cleaner electricity.

That position places the Rafael debate within a wider policy question: whether regional energy needs should be met through additional gas production, renewable infrastructure or a combination of different sources.

How Has Buru Energy Responded to the Fracking Allegations?

Buru Energy executive chairman David Maxwell has rejected the suggestion that Rafael is intended to facilitate fracking.

Maxwell told ABC News that the proposed project had no connection with fracking and stressed that the current referral did not involve hydraulic fracturing.

He also said that any future proposal involving the technique would require a separate EPA referral, a separate application and a separate approval process.

Buru has previously used hydraulic fracturing at its Yulleroo gas field, also in the Canning Basin. ABC News has reported on the company’s earlier use of the technique at the site.

Maxwell said the company no longer practises hydraulic fracturing and had put the technique aside. He added that Buru currently had no plans for fracture stimulation.

The company’s position is therefore that Rafael should be assessed according to the activities actually proposed, rather than treated as an application for future unconventional gas extraction.

The disagreement centres partly on the scope of the assessment. Buru argues that the present proposal concerns conventional gas production, while Environs Kimberley says the company’s wider ambitions make it necessary to consider the potential for future expansion.

Those competing positions do not alter the formal regulatory process. The EPA must determine the appropriate level of assessment for the Rafael proposal on the basis of the relevant documentation, applicable requirements and any comments received.

What Is the Western Australian Government’s Position on Fracking?

Western Australia’s approach to hydraulic fracturing has remained a significant issue in the Kimberley.

The state prohibits the practice across most of its territory but permits it in certain areas. This has left the Canning Basin at the centre of continuing disagreements between the resources industry, environmental organisations and communities concerned about the effects of unconventional gas extraction.

Mines Minister Daniel Pastorelli addressed the debate during a visit to Broome in October 2026.

As reported by ABC Kimberley journalists Jess Baker and Natasha Clark, Pastorelli acknowledged that people held different views about fracking and said he respected those differences. He also said the government’s approach was based on science.

Earlier in 2026, the EPA recommended that the separate Valhalla exploration proposal proceed subject to conditions. That recommendation illustrated the distinction between environmental assessment and the broader political debate about whether fracking should be permitted in the Kimberley.

The recommendation was not a blanket authorisation for all unconventional gas developments in the region. It concerned the specific Valhalla proposal and its conditions.

Rafael must follow its own regulatory pathway. The EPA’s initial decision will establish whether the proposal requires a formal environmental impact assessment and, if so, the level of assessment to be undertaken.

When Could Rafael Begin Producing Gas?

Buru Energy expects the EPA to make its initial decision by the end of 2026. The company is targeting first gas production in early 2029, subject to the necessary regulatory approvals and further project development.

Information published by Buru following the referral also identifies a potential final investment decision in the second half of 2027, provided the required approvals and other milestones are achieved.

The timetable remains conditional. The EPA’s decision on whether and how to assess the proposal is not equivalent to final environmental approval, and the referral alone does not guarantee that the development will proceed.

If the regulator requires a more extensive assessment, the company may need to provide additional information and respond to further scrutiny before subsequent decisions can be made.

Other development requirements and the company’s investment decision will also influence the schedule. The available information does not establish that all these steps have been completed.

The proposed early-2029 production date should therefore be understood as Buru Energy’s target rather than a confirmed commissioning date.

Background: Why Is Gas Development in the Kimberley Controversial?

The Kimberley is a large and geographically remote region of Western Australia, where supplying energy to communities and businesses presents logistical challenges. The cost and reliability of transporting fuel from other regions are among the issues cited by proponents of local gas production.

The Canning Basin has attracted interest from oil and gas companies seeking to develop conventional and unconventional resources. However, proposals involving fracking have generated opposition over concerns about water, land, biodiversity and the long-term effects of expanding industrial activity.

The dispute has also involved questions about the region’s energy future and whether investment should prioritise gas production or renewable alternatives.

The Valhalla exploration programme has become a prominent example of this disagreement. In January 2026, the EPA recommended that the programme proceed subject to conditions, prompting criticism from environmental campaigners and renewed public debate about the state’s fracking policy.

Rafael is a separate development, centred on conventional gas extraction and a proposed processing facility. Nevertheless, campaigners argue that the infrastructure and commercial opportunities created by gas development could influence subsequent decisions about unconventional resources.

Buru Energy disputes that interpretation and says any future fracking proposal would require a separate regulatory process.

The immediate issue is now the EPA’s consideration of the Rafael referral. Its decision will clarify the next stage of environmental scrutiny, but will not by itself resolve the wider political debate about gas development in the Kimberley.

Prediction: How Could the Rafael Project Affect Kimberley Residents and Energy Users?

The project’s impact on Kimberley residents, businesses and energy users will depend on whether it receives the required approvals, proceeds to construction and ultimately delivers the production volumes anticipated by Buru Energy.

If developed as proposed, Rafael could provide an additional local source of gas and LPG, potentially reducing reliance on supplies transported from other regions. Businesses and energy suppliers could benefit from a more geographically local source of fuel, although the actual effect on supply reliability and prices would depend on commercial arrangements and operating performance.

The project’s proposed output could be significant relative to the gas demand figures cited by the company. However, production capacity alone does not establish that customers will receive cheaper electricity or that imported energy will no longer be needed.

For residents and local businesses, the environmental assessment will also be important. Decisions about groundwater, biodiversity, emissions, transport and other potential impacts could influence the conditions under which the facility is allowed to operate.