Woodside’s Geothermal Strategy 2025: Ambition vs. Action

Industry Adoption: Woodside Energy’s Cautious Dance with Geothermal

Between 2021 and 2024, Woodside Energy treated geothermal energy as a strategic option rather than an operational priority. The company’s activities were confined to regulatory engagement in its home market of Australia, such as providing submissions on draft petroleum and geothermal regulations. This signaled a long-term interest in shaping a favorable operating environment while leveraging its core competencies in subsurface exploration, which are directly transferable from oil and gas. During this period, geothermal was mentioned in strategic documents but received no dedicated capital, contrasting with peers like Devon Energy, which made a direct investment into geothermal tech firm Fervo Energy. Woodside’s approach was one of passive monitoring, keeping the technology on its radar without committing to pilots or commercial-scale projects.

A significant shift in rhetoric, if not in capital allocation, occurred from 2025 onwards. Woodside began articulating a more explicit, albeit vague, ambition, including a goal to “double geothermal take-up in Australia.” This ambition is framed within a broader target to invest $5 billion in new energy technologies—including hydrogen, ammonia, and CCUS—by 2030. However, this stated interest is overshadowed by the company’s concrete actions. The divestment from a 5 MW concentrated solar power (CSP) pilot project with Heliogen in January 2025 reveals a low risk appetite for capital-intensive, emerging clean technologies that face development hurdles similar to geothermal. This strategic ambivalence is the key inflection point: while geothermal is now part of the public narrative, Woodside’s financial commitments remain overwhelmingly directed towards its legacy LNG business, such as the massive $17.5 billion Louisiana LNG project. This pattern suggests that while the potential for geothermal is acknowledged, it has not yet passed the threshold for significant investment, leaving it as an aspirational footnote in a strategy dominated by fossil fuels.

Table: Woodside Energy Key Strategic Investments & Divestments (2025)

Table: Woodside Energy Strategic Partnerships

Geography: Woodside Energy’s Strategic Pivot to North America

Between 2021 and 2024, Woodside’s geographic focus for new energy, including its passive interest in geothermal, was almost exclusively on its domestic market of Australia. The company engaged with state government bodies like Western Australia’s DMIRS on regulatory frameworks, positioning itself for potential future projects. Its new energy partnerships, such as the Southern Green Hydrogen project, were also concentrated in the Oceania region. This period was characterized by a strategy of developing a long-term regulatory runway at home.

From 2025, Woodside’s geographic center of gravity for new investments has dramatically shifted to North America, though its geothermal ambitions remain tied to Australia. The company’s major capital outlays are now concentrated on the U.S. Gulf Coast, highlighted by the $17.5 billion Louisiana LNG project, the acquisition of OCI’s ammonia project in Texas, and the purchase of Tellurian’s Driftwood LNG. These moves establish a powerful U.S. presence in both LNG and low-carbon fuels. In parallel, its new energy supply chain ambitions extend to Asia, with a hydrogen partnership focused on Japan. In stark contrast, geothermal activity remains a purely Australian prospect, with a vague mention of doubling take-up in the context of its Bass Strait assets. This geographic divergence is telling: North America is the theater for large-scale, de-risked commercial execution, while Australia remains the incubator for more speculative, long-term options like geothermal.

Technology Maturity: Woodside Energy’s Preference for Commercially-Ready Solutions

In the 2021-2024 timeframe, Woodside’s engagement with geothermal was at the lowest level of technology readiness: pre-commercial monitoring and regulatory review. The company did not participate in pilot projects, technology development, or direct investment, keeping geothermal firmly in the “strategic optionality” bucket. Its focus was on technologies closer to its core, such as collaborations on LNG processing with MAN Energy Solutions and exploring hydrogen markets with RWE.

The period from 2025 to the present reveals a clear preference for technologies that are either commercially mature or nearing commercial viability. While geothermal remains an undefined, aspirational goal, Woodside is actively partnering on scaling deployable solutions. The collaboration with Baker Hughes on the NET Power platform—a natural gas generation technology with inherent carbon capture—is a prime example. This technology is past the conceptual stage and aims for commercial deployment. Conversely, Woodside’s exit from the Heliogen CSP pilot project demonstrates its aversion to funding earlier-stage hardware technologies with high capital costs and development risk. This action serves as a proxy for its likely stance on geothermal, which shares similar financial and technical hurdles. The company’s capital is flowing towards scaling proven LNG, building out hydrogen and ammonia infrastructure, and deploying advanced carbon capture, leaving nascent technologies like geothermal waiting for external de-risking or a significant strategic pivot.

Table: SWOT Analysis of Woodside Energy’s Geothermal Strategy

Forward-Looking Insights: Geothermal Remains an Option, Not a Reality

Based on Woodside’s activities in 2025, its geothermal strategy is aspirational at best. The coming year will be a critical test of whether this ambition translates into action. The company’s narrative is one of transition, yet its capital flows overwhelmingly towards reinforcing its LNG dominance. The key signal to watch is the allocation of its $5 billion new energy fund. Any meaningful CAPEX directed specifically toward a geothermal pilot or commercial project would mark a genuine strategic shift.

Market actors should pay close attention to any announcements that add substance to the vague goal of “doubling geothermal take-up.” This would require project names, specific locations (likely linked to the Bass Strait assets), investment figures, and clear timelines. Without these details, the goal remains little more than a line in a sustainability report. Furthermore, the absence of any geothermal-focused partnerships is glaring, especially as Woodside actively forms alliances for LNG, hydrogen, and CCS. The first dedicated geothermal partnership would be the most credible indicator that the company is serious. Until then, expect Woodside’s financial and operational priorities to remain firmly rooted in natural gas, with geothermal held as a long-term, speculative option dependent on external market or technological de-risking.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Woodside actually investing money in geothermal projects?
No. According to the analysis, geothermal has received no dedicated capital from Woodside. While the company stated a goal in 2025 to ‘double geothermal take-up in Australia,’ it remains an unfunded ambition and is described as an ‘aspirational footnote’ in a strategy dominated by fossil fuels.

How do Woodside’s investments in new energy compare to its investments in traditional fossil fuels?
Woodside’s investments are overwhelmingly focused on its legacy fossil fuel business. The company has committed $17.5 billion to the Louisiana LNG project alone, which is more than three times its entire stated goal to invest $5 billion across all new energy technologies (including hydrogen, ammonia, CCUS, and geothermal) by 2030.

Why is Woodside’s withdrawal from the Heliogen solar project significant for its geothermal strategy?
Woodside’s divestment from the 5 MW Heliogen concentrated solar power (CSP) pilot project demonstrates a low appetite for risk associated with capital-intensive, pre-commercial clean technologies. Since geothermal shares similar high upfront costs and development hurdles, this action suggests that geothermal is unlikely to receive significant investment from Woodside until it is further de-risked.

Where are Woodside’s main investment activities happening geographically?
While Woodside’s geothermal ambitions are vaguely tied to Australia (specifically its Bass Strait assets), its major capital investments have shifted dramatically to North America. The company’s largest financial commitments are on the U.S. Gulf Coast, including the $17.5 billion Louisiana LNG project and a major low-carbon ammonia project in Texas.

What would be a real sign that Woodside is getting serious about its geothermal ambitions?
The most credible indicator would be a specific, meaningful capital allocation from its $5 billion new energy fund directed towards a geothermal pilot or commercial project. Another key signal would be the announcement of a dedicated geothermal-focused partnership, which is currently absent while the company actively forms alliances for LNG, hydrogen, and CCS.