The Narrabri gas project has been given another green light, this time by Environment Minister Sussan Ley. But was there ever any doubt Ley would wave through the project, which has already been championed by her own government, including the energy minister and the prime minister?
The project received the backing of the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission (ICP) last month. Political forces have made the project a sure thing from day one. To say no to it now would be to turn against the mythological status the government has bestowed upon gas, as Australia’s saviour fossil fuel.
Ley’s approval is another sign regulatory and ministerial assessments have become meaningless in the face of corporate interests, lobbying and intense political pressure.
“The system in a sense has been corrupted from the beginning,” Mark Ogge, energy analyst at The Australia Institute, said.
“You’ve got this situation where politicians basically advocate for environmental approvals and put pressure on bureaucrats to make those approvals.”
Santos and its political supporters put enormous pressure on the IPC to endorse the project. Even as the commission was deliberating on its verdict, Prime Minister Scott Morrison listed it as one of 15 projects of national significance that should be accelerated under federal environment laws.
This pressure has meant the government has been unable to independently assess whether the project was viable or sustainable, Ogge said.
“We’re meant to be assessing whether these projects are in the public interest based on science, but instead we have the PM and the energy minister and all sorts of politicians putting pressure on the people who are ultimately making the decision.”
Santos, the company bidding for approval, has not even decided whether it will finance the development. It said it would now start a 12-to-18-month appraisal process before making a final decision.
But that hasn’t stopped the project from being written into the government’s energy policy as the star of its “gas-fired” recovery plan.
Santos doesn’t win its battles on its own — it has the backing of Australia’s most powerful political forces, allowing it to kickstart billions of dollars’ worth of projects even when demand for gas falls.
With another hurdle cleared, it stands to be one of the biggest winners in the government’s COVID recovery plan — assuming the project does in fact go ahead.
IPC and this so-called “government have blithely ignored the possible adverse effects on the Great Artesian Basin if gas mining of the Pilliga is permitted and (inevitably) causes leakages, a la the Condamine River. The Pilliga is the main sink for this great aquifer and any leakage of methane and obnoxious release agents from fracking could destroy agriculture over a vast region. Just for once, let commonsense prevail over profit and greed!
Face it – this government reigns to benefit the minority of we Australians that are it’s donors.
Hopefully the project will never go ahead.
They aren’t exactly traveling well – search for “Santos write down” (last 12 months) & you will see figures quoted from hundreds of millions to $1.1 billion mentioned.
Is it all COVID related? I don’t think so. There is a general gas glut on international markets, as well as RE increasingly eating it’s lunch.
Then there is the difficulties with finance & insurance. These sort of businesses are increasingly being seen as high risk (especially with weak business cases as in the Narrabri); even without the movement to refuse lending to high emissions businesses.
There was a lot of interest in the Santos share price post approval.
https://www.fool.com.au/2020/09/30/santos-asxsto-share-price-on-watch-after-narrabri-gas-project-approval/
There are plenty out there who will look to fool you.
Then again, it could work out for a Jordan Belfort sort.
This one not quite over the line, yet. Like Adani, it doesn’t stack up economically. Gas is currently 50% or more below the price of extraction, best estimates. Other readings suggest Santos is looking to just move this along as far as possible before trying to offload it. I’m hoping for more write downs if they turn one sod of dirt.
Any company that lends to them to build this is taking on some serious risk, and probably some activist industry fund troubles also. In an economically sane world it would never happen.
An economically sane world DB, never going to happen whilst Mate’s Rates are about. A lot of current clear felling forestry practices also fall into that category as well. Whether valued in a Carbon budget or a standard cost/value one before the ‘taxpayer Bung’ is added in.
You make a strong argument Johnb. I continue to live in some fairy land where economic numbers relate to some real world concept of business for real profit. I’m fairly sure it’s me who is the naive fool.
There’s a significant difference in my mind DB between creating wealth and making money. Wealth is no longer made here by investing in production. It’s created financially, mainly by making capital gains. Ensuring rising prices for real estate or for stocks and for bonds. I suspect that these permissions have more to do with Balance sheets, share price et al. So far as I am aware there are no plans or process in place to actually take any concrete action and the published numbers themselves don’t make any sense unless there is another sweetheart deal kicking about in a safe somewhere guaranteeing ‘mates rates’.