Energy ministers give green light to expand gas industry

August 26, 2016
APPEA chairperson Bruce Lake has admitted that the gas inudstry has 'never been so aggressively challenged'.

Asking the peak oil and gas industry body to prepare a report on Australia's future energy needs for federal and state energy ministers was always going to have a predictable outcome.

The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) was tasked to report to the Council of Australian Government (COAG) energy ministers meeting on August 18 and 19. Unsurprisingly, it recommended urgently producing and supplying more gas — and fast — before Australia runs out.

The meeting accepted the discredited line that gas is a “transition fuel”, and that the more gas supplied, the lower the price for the consumer.

The final communique reveals that energy ministers, with the possible exception of Victoria, are in lock step with APPEA's push to expand unconventional gas. And APPEA was pleased with the result.

Over the last 5 years the Stop CSG movement, spearheaded by farmers and regional communities, has forced concessions from pro-gas governments including imposing some (although not enough) regulations on the industry, moratoriums on new licences, and cancellations and buy-backs of old licences (including one which covered the whole Sydney Basin), along with raising community consciousness about the polluting dangers associated with fracking.

This has clearly infuriated APPEA. For chairperson Bruce Lake, “gas has never been so important” but “it has also never been so aggressively challenged”.

Lake, who is also managing director of Vermilion Oil, laid out the industry argument APPEA took to the COAG meeting.
“There is a pressing need to stimulate exploration and development to supply Australia and the world,” he said, adding that those who argue that gas is unnecessary and dangerous are “wrong”. Gas, he said, “must be part of the transition to a low-emissions future”.

Meanwhile, APPEA CEO Malcolm Roberts told energy ministers that there will be dire economic and social costs unless the east coast gas market is “opened up”.

“Governments have been warned ... that we risk a supply shortfall by 2019 if new gas reserves are not developed urgently. And the states that are the most vulnerable are the ones that have not developed their own resources,” he said.

He said Victoria, which has a limited moratorium on onshore gas projects, must lift it immediately, as “there is no environmental justification to prohibit onshore gas exploration and development”.

These assertions are highly contested by farmers, rural communities, doctors, climate scientists and researchers.
Solar Citizens and Doctors for the Environment were quick to condemn the COAG meeting's outcomes.

Solar Citizens spokesperson Claire O'Rourke said the meeting was “a wasted opportunity when what's needed is a fundamental rewrite of our energy laws … to facilitate the orderly transition to 100% renewable power”.

She said that while recognising the role of battery storage was important, it was “overshadowed by the gas industry's campaigning efforts”.

Doctors for the Environment spokesperson Graeme McLeay said on August 23 that the big winners from the COAG energy summit were “gas interests rather than ordinary Australians many of whom don't know the misinformation and lies that are being presented as 'evidence'.”

McLeay criticised the federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg as “reckless” for repeating the lie that gas will help with a transition to renewables and that it is a cleaner form of fossil fuel.

“The Minister has clearly ignored the question of 'fugitive emissions' or releases of gas, mostly methane, during the mining, processing and delivery phases,” McLeay said.

“America's Environmental Defence Fund estimates that a significant amount of man-made global warming is caused by methane emissions, much of which is fugitive emissions.

“The Minister also seems to have ignored the environmental damage to air quality and water tables and the health costs of gas mining on local communities.”

Doctors for the Environment has undertaken research on these questions and states that the risks of unconventional gas mining are “so potentially serious, so difficult to manage and so likely to be long-lived, that any further development of the unconventional gas industry in Australia has to be seen as unwise and unhealthy”.

There is also the question of the gas glut. Even industry insiders, such as Woodside, admit the prospect of producing more gas is less appealing due to oversupply in the gas market.

McLeay, along with many others, refutes the lie that gas is some sort of transition towards developing sustainable energy systems.

“We already have the technology to move to a rapid transition to renewables without the unnecessary and harmful step of opening new gasfields to an industry that will be soon outmoded.

“What we need is the political will that puts people's wellbeing above corporate greed,” he concluded.

Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.


Excellent article. Doctors for the Environment are quite correct about the dangers of further gas exploitation. Methane (CH4) (about 85% of natural gas) is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account. Methane leaks (3.3% in the US based on the latest US EPA data and as high as 7.9% for methane from “fracking” coal seams; a 2.6 % leakage of CH4 yields the same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining 97.4% CH4). Using this information one can determine that gas burning for electricity can be much dirtier than coal burning greenhouse gas-wise (GHG-wise). While gas burning for power generates twice as much electrical energy per tonne of CO2 produced (MWh/tonne CO2) than coal burning and the health-adverse pollution from gas burning is lower than for coal burning, gas leakage in the system actually means that gas burning for power can actually be worse GHG-wise than coal burning depending on the degree of systemic gas leakage. Gas is dirty energy and a coal-to-gas transition simply means long-term investment in another carbon fuel and delaying urgently required complete cessation of carbon fuel burning (see “Gas is not clean energy”: ).

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.