Key Points:
- Leaked internal documents show that BHP, the world’s largest miner, quietly backtracked on major climate commitments in Western Australia.
- The company shelved plans for a Jimblebar beneficiation plant that would have reduced customer emissions by 1.7 million tonnes annually.
- A board-approved 50-megawatt solar farm was canceled shortly after receiving funding, while a 500MW project was delayed until 2031.
- Under Australia’s safeguard mechanism, BHP used less than $9 million to buy 225,000 carbon credits to offset its excess emissions.
The world’s biggest miner has quietly backtracked on its major climate commitments, putting crucial clean energy and emissions-cutting projects in Western Australia’s Pilbara region on ice. A cache of leaked internal records, dubbed the “BHP files,” leaked to the Guardian and the ABC’s Four Corners program on Monday, May 25, 2026. The documents show a stark gap between the multinational’s public green marketing campaigns and its actual operational decisions, triggering intense scrutiny from investors and environmental advocates alike.
The leaked records reveal that BHP slashed spending on its decarbonization programs over the past year. The company chose to delay meaningful climate investments until the 2030s at the earliest, prioritizing short-term financial returns over long-term environmental goals. This strategic slowdown occurred despite overwhelming shareholder support for urgent climate action and formal board approval of key renewable energy installations designed to power its vast iron ore network.
Among the most significant casualties of this spending freeze is a major processing facility near BHP’s Jimblebar open-cut mine. In 2025, the company was well advanced in its plans to build a beneficiation plant to improve the purity and quality of its iron ore greatly. High-quality ore is highly sought after by global steelmakers, particularly in China, which faces intense regulatory pressure to cut its own emissions. Using premium-grade ore is one of the most cost-effective ways for steel mills to reduce their coal consumption.
BHP’s internal assessments previously rated the Jimblebar plant as having “excellent social value” and being aligned with its decarbonization targets. The facility would have reduced scope-three emissions—those released by BHP’s customers—by an estimated 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. This reduction is equivalent to removing more than 350,000 cars from the road, accounting for roughly three-quarters of the annual emissions from the mine’s operations. Despite these benefits, BHP quietly dumped the project.
In addition to scrapping the processing plant, BHP shelved a board-approved 50-megawatt (MW) solar farm and a 20MW battery storage project at the Jimblebar mine. The company’s board had approved and fully funded the clean energy project in mid-2023, but executives quietly closed the initiative shortly after. The sudden cancellation prompted internal criticism from staff, with some employees openly questioning the decision to unilaterally shut down a project that had already secured board backing.
The scale of the delay extends to even larger green energy initiatives. Documents show that a massive planned system of almost 500MW of solar, wind, and battery storage—designed to power BHP’s vast Western Australian Iron Ore (WAIO) network—will not progress in its current form. While initial plans called for this project to deliver its first power in December 2027, the company has now withheld all capital funding for the system until 2031 at the earliest.
The leaked files show that BHP’s internal teams were fully aware of the consequences of these delays. They warned executives that slowing down climate action in the Pilbara would pose a massive “reputational risk.” The documents emphasize that urgent decarbonization in line with the company’s public commitments effectively underpinned its “license to operate.” Despite these warnings, management chose to delay the investments, relying instead on cheaper alternative compliance methods.
These alternative methods cast a harsh light on Australia’s controversial safeguard mechanism. The policy requires large industrial sites to reduce their emissions intensity year on year. Still, it allows companies to meet their targets by buying carbon offset credits rather than making direct, physical cuts at their operations. Last year, emissions from more than half of BHP’s polluting sites exceeded their government-set limits. To offset this excess pollution, the company purchased 225,000 carbon credits for less than $9 million.
As institutional investors continue to demand genuine action on scope-three emissions, the revelations in the leaked files threaten to damage BHP’s credibility in an era of rapid transition toward green steel. While the company continues to market its resources as responsibly produced, the operational reality reveals a business that places its faith in inexpensive carbon offsets rather than clean technology. This approach could backfire as global steelmakers increasingly demand higher-grade, low-carbon ores to meet their own net-zero targets.
