Nov 21, 2014

How the oil and gas lobby throws mud on peer-reviewed research

Crikey's business editor pulls apart a pro-CSG press release that is, to put it politely, a little bit bullshit.

Paddy Manning

Crikey business editor

On Tuesday, Southern Cross University announced the publication of the first peer-reviewed study into fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from coal seam gas fields in Australia. Two years ago the university put out its preliminary findings in the study, which looked at two CSG fields, one in Casino, New South Wales, and the other in Tara, Queensland. The study was slammed by industry and government because it identified significant coal-seam gas leakage in both fields. Martin Ferguson, then the minister for energy and resources, accused the two scientists behind the study of being motivated by "short-lived media opportunities". The industry complained to the university about it.  Now the trail-blazing study has been peer reviewed. The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association -- a.k.a. "the voice of Austalia's oil and gas industry" -- put out this press release. Crikey's business editor Paddy Manning pulls it apart. (You can see a larger version of the image here.)  

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

13 thoughts on “How the oil and gas lobby throws mud on peer-reviewed research

  1. Roger Clifton

    US gasfield leakages are visible from space.
    The same satellite would be able to see our own leaky fields.

  2. paddy

    LOL Lovely work there Paddy.
    One minor nit though.
    It’s actually cow burps, rather than farts, that produce all that methane. (But I understand the the preference for fart jokes over a boring old burp.)

  3. Olan Getrat

    I seem to recall US data indicating that by the 20 or 30 year mark about half of gas wells are faulty e.g. corroded casings.

    What they will be like in 100 years is unknown, but it is likely to a major problem, not for gas so much as for groundwater. The degrading gas wells often link a number of aquifers of varying qualities thereby polluting the better aquifers used for irrigation and stock and domestic.

    But the gas companies will be long gone leaving at best a shell company holding the liabilities

    Such is the capitalist way.

  4. MJPC

    Paddy and Olan; and this is the nub of the issue I believe. When a well goes rogue (or many) who is going to be liable for the clean-up (even if it can be remediated; which appeasr unlikely)?
    If the company goes bankrupt the poor old taxpayer will be paying the cost of fixing the disaster.

  5. Norman Hanscombe

    Southern Cross is hardly one of Australia’s quality tertiary institutions, even if it’s called a university?

  6. Kevin_T

    Hi Norman Hanscombe,
    I am afraid that I don’t understand your question.

    Is there a suggestion that they are peer reviewed to a lower standard than other tertiary research?

    Regards, Kevin

  7. AR

    Nice way of dealing with such tripe – it is giving undue relevance to construct an article when just hi-liter marks are sufficient to show the feckless & feeble excuse for reason.

  8. max steinman

    Kevin_T, Norman is a climate change denialist, he has no idea what peer review even is.

  9. GF50

    Thanks Paddy, I often wonder if there is still a false advertising charge or penalty?

  10. James O'Neill

    There is actually an important point being made here. An inordinate amount of media space is given over to the special interests to promote their viewpoints. This is especially true of the extractive industries that have the Liberals and Labour well and truly in their pocket. Serious peer reviewed research is subject to the sort of disinformation taken apart in this excellent analysis.

    The SMH did a similar job yesterday on Julie Bishop’s defence of the government’s Great Barrier Reef claims which it described as “disingenuous and misleading”. If only a similarly rigorous analysis was applied to a range of other government and/or pronouncements.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details