@ Alex Nelson, I would say the original concept of …

Comment on Will gas royalties save the NT? Read the fine print. by Mark Fraser.

@ Alex Nelson, I would say the original concept of using our own onshore gas such as it was from the Amadeus Basin, was the right thing to do, and did contribute to development.
However, I’d say there was not enough done in developing downstream industries to create the secondary layer of economic benefits to have fully capitalized on the resource.
It was the right thing to do back then and still remains the right thing to do today.
Why we decided to switch from NT owned onshore gas to Federally owned offshore gas, is something I have yet to get my head around.
I do understand the original fields were depleting (that happens all over the world), but there was more than enough time to explore and bring online new fields, why didn’t this happen?
I always felt the offsore gas from ENI’s Black-Tip field should have been tagged for export alongside CoP and Inpex terminals in Darwin.

Mark Fraser Also Commented

Will gas royalties save the NT? Read the fine print.
If the economic case argument is that every industry must be able to single-handedly lift the entire NT economy out of the doldrums to justify its existence, then every single industry in NT would fail that test and therefore not deserve to exist.
What a bogus nonsensical argument to be making … an economy is made up of a collective of diverse and often complementary symbiotic industries.
Natural gas is a raw product which has more downstream uses in manufacturing than in energy generation.
The simple fact is you will repeatedly rely on countless day to day use items today, tomorrow, and the next … which were manufactured using natural gas as either … energy, intense heat source, chemical raw feed-stock ingredient.
Natural gas is used extensively in the production of structural steels, bricks and cement essential for our construction industry, and natural gas is also the key raw feed-stock ingredient for the industrial scale manufacture of ammonia through the Haber–Bosch process, for cleaners and fertilisers.
There are about 180 million tons of ammonia fertiliser manufactured globally each year, but in NT we pay exorbitant freight costs to import what we need, when we should be able to manufacture more than enough gas to not only meet all our needs, but be a global exporter of fertiliser as just one of many downstream value added industries made possible by our shale gas industry.
The limit of the economic benefits from NT natural gas industry will be measured by the ability of the NT Government to attract investors to setup the countless downstream manufacturing operations which will provide countless jobs into the future.

Recent Comments by Mark Fraser

‘You can make fracking better but you can’t do it well’
The NT Government did exactly what it pledged to do, to hold a moratorium (a temporary prohibition of an activity), and hold a formal Independent Scientific Inquiry, and then base a decision on whether to ban onshore gas or to permit it under highly-regulated circumstances in tightly-prescribed areas on the recommendations in the final report.
Moratorium – tick.
Formal Independent Scientific Inquiry – tick.
Wait for final report before making any decision – tick
Decision to ban or permit (based on scientific recommendations) – tick.
What we see in social media echo chambers by anti-onshore gas activists, is an attempt to rephrase the NT Government’s commitments to portray is as having been a guaranteed outcome of a ban, which was never the case.
The Independent Scientific Inquiry was made up of an array of scientific specialities, suited to study each claim or concern and be able to discredit it as false or misleading or validate it as relevant and define recommendation to mitigate or eliminate these potential risks.
The fact that the findings of a panel of respectable eminent scientists did not side with the more extreme views of those opposed does not make the inquiry or the NT Government some kind of plot or conspiracy to betray the NT public.
Far from it, it actually followed a proper course of investigation and made an informed decision which should now be respected.

Fracking pipe ‘deformation’ row: The sequel
Thanks Erwin, for this important follow up article which goes a long way to clarifying the facts.
It’s unfortunate that this wasn’t checked properly before publishing the earlier misinformed article, filled with Loch the Gate Alliance (LTGA) false and misleading statements.
LTGA made two key claims, both were completely wrong:
[1] There was a well integrity issue. This is very easily debunked just by looking at the illustration, the deformation is clearly in the resource rock zone and it is perforated by design either side of the deformation, i.e. intentional breach of production casing integrity to create pathways for the resource to flow out of the rocks, into the casing.
[2] The claim of a cover-up was made by LTGA spokesperson Naomi Hogan, who erroneously believed the illustration and details of the deformation were being “air-brushed out” and not made public, but the fact was this, this illustration and all details were publicly available in the Inquiry submission library (a key source of information for LTGA) since May 2017.
It appears LTGA key representative failed to research key documents and facts properly since at least May 2017, failed to understand the difference between well bore integrity and production casing, failed to courteously ask Origin for an explanation prior to choosing instead to falsely accuse, failed to retract their misleading statement to the Inquiry chair when it was made evident to LTGA they were wrong, but LTGA has succeeded to maintain media interviews and multiple postings in their social media to keep the misinformation bouncing around for the unwary public to digest.
If this isn’t a red flag, then show me what it?

Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor