Controversy Erupts Over Greenhouse Gas Estimates for Beetaloo Basin Fracking Project
Debate surrounds the estimated greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated by the development of the Beetaloo Basin, located in the Northern Territory of Australia. The Beetaloo Basin is believed to hold enough gas to power the country for the next 200 to 300 years, making it a valuable resource. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential environmental impact of extracting and utilizing this gas.
The Northern Territory government approved fracking in the Beetaloo Basin but assured the public that all onshore emissions would be offset, resulting in no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the territory. The responsibility of determining the necessary offsets was given to GISERA, the gas research arm of the CSIRO, which receives partial funding from fossil fuel companies.
In February, the CSIRO released a report stating that emissions from a moderately sized fracking industry could be offset through various measures such as mitigation, carbon reduction, and the use of up to 10% of Australia’s land-based carbon credits. However, the report failed to address emissions from Beetaloo gas intended for export, which could potentially account for 50% to 75% of the basin’s production.
Environmental groups criticized the conclusions of the CSIRO report, with a respected carbon market expert calling them wildly unrealistic. The main issue raised was the lack of publicly available data on the greenhouse gas emissions that would be produced by the Beetaloo Basin. This data was only made available in September when it was quietly uploaded to the CSIRO’s website.
Climate Analytics, a climate science policy institute, subsequently assessed the Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Study of Onshore Gas in the Northern Territory and found it to be systematically biased in underestimating emissions. The institute compared the study with scientific literature, data from similar operations in other countries, and experiences in other parts of Australia. It discovered that the study consistently used the lowest possible emission rates, resulting in a significant underestimation of emissions.
According to Climate Analytics, the CSIRO study underestimated annual onshore emissions by up to 84%, methane loss rates by at least 56%, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production emissions by up to 89%. They estimated that the Beetaloo Basin could potentially produce 47 million tonnes of emissions per year, which is equivalent to adding six to eight million cars to Australia’s roads. Additionally, LNG produced from the Beetaloo gas could be more carbon-intensive than any other LNG produced in Australia, generating more CO2.
Climate Analytics calculated that emissions from the Beetaloo Basin could be 45% higher than what the CSIRO estimated, equating to approximately 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalent over a span of 25 years. They also argued that relying on carbon offsets would not effectively address the long-term consequences of carbon dioxide emissions, as such emissions have a lasting impact on the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Companies involved in the development of the Beetaloo Basin have consistently claimed that the gas produced has a low CO2 content (around 1% to 2%) and will therefore have a lesser impact on climate change compared to other gas reserves. Australian Energy Producers NT, a gas industry lobby group, echoed these claims and emphasized the role that gas from the Beetaloo Basin could play in supporting renewable energy deployment, powering industries, and facilitating the transition away from coal.
The International Energy Agency recently stated that no new fossil fuel developments can take place if the world aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This underlines the ongoing global focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the concerns surrounding greenhouse gas estimates for the Beetaloo Basin fracking project will be addressed and the potential impacts on Australia’s climate goals.
