Thumping drums, plenty of police and a wheelchair-bound skeleton were a dead giveaway the biggest event on Woodside investors' calendar wouldn't look much like the average company annual general meeting.
For years, the energy giant has been a target for green groups and climate change activists, but with the clock said to be ticking for the world to avoid a "climate time-bomb" they've been ramping up their efforts.
Woodside firmly believes its climate targets — a 15 per cent reduction by 2025, 30 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050 — are in line with meeting global emissions reduction needs.
But on Friday, across Perth's CBD, it faced pressure from outside and within to go further, and do it faster.
Activists scaring away investors: Woodside
Shareholders being greeted with drumming protesters, and others holding large photos of natural disasters emblazoned with the words "Climate change brought to you by Woodside", is hardly surprising, especially for Woodside.
But their presence has had an effect, according to Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill, who blamed the groups for scaring away mum and dad investors from in-person meetings.
"Many of our shareholders who depend on our dividend, or value our dividend as part of their retirements, they've been intimidated by these activists who are trying to hijack the meeting," Ms O'Neill told journalists after the meeting.
"It's quite frustrating actually, because we'd like to be able to really engage with the thousands of mums and dads who own our shares and want to learn more about the company and have that interaction."
For a different type of activist, this time trying to influence Woodside from within, Ms O'Neill had a more diplomatic view.
"We respect the rights of shareholders to express their opinion and to engage with the company, and today I think was a great example of how that can be done in a respectful, constructive and at times challenging way where we can have those discussions on divergent viewpoints," she said.
"What I worry about ... is how extremists could deliver an outcome that would be poor for Australians and for our trading partners."
The meeting also saw Ms O'Neill offer a meeting to Greenpeace Australia-Pacific chief executive David Ritter.
"We've met with a number of groups that are critical of us when we feel like we can have reasonable and open conversations," she said when asked about the offer.
Company directors in firing line
Among the 'activist investor' group are people like Will van de Pol, acting executive director of Market Forces.
He leads one of the groups pushing for Woodside's own investors to throw their weight around to push the company into the type of action they'd like to see.
Woodside's climate plan, which was last year rejected by 49 per cent of shareholders, did not go to a vote on Friday.
Without a direct vote on climate on the agenda, groups like Market Forces and Legal & General Investment Management, which describes itself as one of Europe's largest asset managers, looked for other ways for agitator investors to use their ballots to send a message to the company and its board.
Aside from asking questions of Ms O'Neill and Mr Goyder, that also meant voting against the re-election of three of the company's directors, with a particular focus on Ian Macfarlane.
"The rationale for our intention to vote against the most senior director up for re-election, Mr Ian Macfarlane, reflects our concerns around the company's lack of commitment to aligning with the Paris objectives and net zero, and the insufficient reaction to the significant proportion of shareholder votes against their climate report," LGIM said on its website.
The former Liberal resources minister survived the push, but was left with 65 per cent approval – a figure Mr van de Pol described as "almost unprecedented".
"The average ASX director is supported by more than 95 per cent of investors, so to see such a significant protest vote against all three directors standing for re-election at Woodside … shows that directors must start managing climate risks like their jobs depend on it," he said.
"[The results] should serve as a warning to Woodside and its directors that they must change their strategy and align with global climate goals."
Despite the vote, Ms O'Neill took a more positive view.
"For a politician, the vote that Ian received was actually quite resounding positive support," she laughed with reporters.
"But we know that shareholders have questions and concerns around our approach to climate change, and there's extensive engagement and interactions that we have over the course of the year to understand those concerns and respond."
The groups had also been trying to initiate a two-year-long process that could have seen Woodside sack its entire board and start fresh, but fell four per cent short.
'It's not the full picture': Conservation Council
The tensions all centre on whether Woodside is doing enough to play its part in addressing climate change.
One focus for critics is that the company's emissions reduction targets only apply to scope one and two emissions, which are either directly emitted by Woodside or result from its energy consumption.
People like the Conservation Council of WA's fossil fuels program manager, Anna Chapman, want the company to also set goals to reduce its scope three emissions, which are those that come from its products being used.
"It's not the full picture unless you count scope three, because what we're tackling is we need to reduce global emissions," she said.
"And so to consider emissions from exports is something that Woodside should be accountable for."
But Woodside maintains inconsistent reporting makes it difficult to accurately assess scope three emissions, and instead has set a target of spending $US5 billion ($7.55 billion) on new energy products by 2030.
"We will work with our customers to reduce their emissions but it's their scope emissions, that is their responsibility," Mr Goyder told the AGM in response to an investor question.
Groups like the Conservation Council and Greenpeace would also like to see Woodside stop any new gas developments – including the Pluto project on the Burrup Peninsula and the $16 billion Scarborough project – over fears they will exacerbate the climate crisis.
But the company made clear that was not on the cards.
In response to a number of questions from investors, both Ms O'Neill and Mr Goyder said there were "a number" of different pathways to net zero by 2050, some of which included the continued development of gas, and that any new projects would be designed to be net zero.
"The global energy security and affordability crisis that unfolded in 2022 highlighted the challenge we all face as we strive to maintain and improve global standards of living while reducing our emissions," Ms O'Neill told shareholders.
"While the transition may unfold in the decades ahead, we can be confident that global energy demand will continue to grow as the more than one billion people without accessible and affordable energy pursue the same quality of life that we in Australia enjoy.
"That demand and the role gas can play as a lower carbon source of energy the world needs underpins our confidence in the long-term strength of our business."
Suspicious canister sparks alarm
Friday's AGM also saw a security scare unfold, unbeknown to most in the meeting, when a suspicious canister was found nearby.
The discovery sparked the involvement of the state security investigation group and the arrest of two men and a woman.
"The item was seized to be forensically tested. It is not believed to be explosive or hazardous to the public," a police spokesperson said.
On Saturday morning two people faced Perth Magistrates Court, charged with aggravated burglary with intent on a place.
