Concern around coal seam gas (CSG) is moving beyond the well-documented fears over impact on groundwater, land use and disposing of excess salt and into a phase which is potentially even more worrying.

The very idea that CSG is a cleaner energy option than oil or coal is being called into question. It seems the promise of CSG going some way towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions is based upon speculation and subjective calculations.

Recent articles published by experts at America’s Cornell University and the US National Centre or Atmospheric Research suggest CSG and shale gas might have no positive impact on greenhouse emissions whatsoever. The impact could even be negative. Just imagine.

The truth be told, CSG is an unknown quantity in more ways than one. And what is known isn’t pretty.

In Australia, there’s been much to and fro with new reports commissioned by both industry and environmental lobby groups. Subsequent debate has centred around the idea that the reports’ findings weren’t being shared in full, and that some experts had claimed that (if best practice wasn’t achieved) CSG could prove to be significantly dirtier than the latest more efficient coal-fired power stations.

To be fair, the industry is still in such an emergent phase in this country that any projections on emissions are just that – projections – and likely to waver substantially. Uncertainty is huge. Which means risk is too.

Where discrepancies appear is in terms of life cycle emissions. By ignoring certain aspects in the calculations CSG, on paper, compares favourable when compared to coal. More helpful than claim and conjecture would be a detailed independent assessment of full life cycle emissions by experts in the field, but not employed by the oil and gas industry.

The IEA’s recent World Energy Outlook couldn’t have been stronger in its warnings about the energy infrastructure we build over the next few years – and its resultant impact on our ability to contain global warming within the red line two degree limit.

With many thousands of CSG wells set to pop up across the Australian landscape over the next decade it seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mind you, the CSG industry has an awful lot to lose with the current tide of public opinion turning against it – and if it loses its purported climate change benefits, there’s precious little left.

In Australia there’s the added complication of carbon pricing, especially if industry emissions estimates are loose.

If the industry’s data is incorrect, and CSG is either no different from or unconceivably even more carbon intensive than coal – then the international push to get CSG projects off the ground worldwide in the transition to cleaner energy is, frankly, laughable. It’s also terrifying.

Should CSG’s climate change credentials prove to be miscalculated, not only will the environment suffer – again – but Australian investors with a finger in the CSG pie will be sorely disappointed when eventually, if applied correctly, the carbon tax will put projected earnings into doubt.

For every cloud there’s supposed to be a silver lining. When it comes to CSG, surely I’m not the only one who doesn’t see it.

---