If, like me, you've been trying to keep up with the barrage of articles in recent days, outlining the 12-dimensional scandal surrounding Chief Minister Fyles and Texan-owned (but Sydney-based) fracking company Tamboran, your head might be spinning.

Mine certainly is. This is an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, and identify the significant detail from the mounting evidence and whirling accusations.

TL/DR

Natasha Fyles, the ALP Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, has leapt from one instance of corrupt and dishonest behaviour to another - each of which would be grounds for resignation and potential prosecution in any other jurisdiction. Along the way, she has dragged the members of her cabinet into blatant deliberate deception of the public.

When did history begin?

The current crisis in Palestine has launched a thousand bad-takes that are best met with the illustrative rhetorical. But here we'll take it literally.

Of course, the ugly history of industrial domination of the NT began with colonisation.

But I'm no historian, so I'll leave it to others to start the story there.

In another, more focused way, we might begin with the highly contentious and strongly opposed Philips Petroleum gas plant at Wickham Point. I was around for the huge campaign by Save Darwin Harbour, and I could tell the story that way. It entails the granting, then revocation, of planning scheme protections on Middle Arm, now the target of a major gas and petro-chemical industrial development precinct. But although those crimes against nature are plastered in the ALP logo, none of our current parliamentarians were on board then.

To many observers, the story of unprecedented dishonesty and corruption around fossil fuel industrialisation of the NT begins with the former Gunner administration and the Territory Economic Reconstruction Committee.

I don't necessarily agree, but I might start there and explain why.

Corrupt by Design

Elsewhere, I've written about the TERC's final report, and explored accusations laid against the lead authors - former NT ALP Chief Minister turned oil & gas consultant Paul Henderson, and former born & bred local turned petrochemical exec - and Trump adviser - Andrew Liveris.

As I described here;

some peeps worry over Mr Henderson’s ... ties to the fossil fuel industry distorts his role on the Commission: that he might be more interested in setting up opportunities for his fossil mates than developing an economy for Territorians;

But clearly, that decision was made before he was engaged.

In fact, the Commission were literally given instructions, titled ‘Operation Rebound’, which were quite specific in assuring a role for gas (maliciously mislabeled as ‘clean energy’).

Corruption is the dishonest abuse of power by individuals in authority for personal interests. But that's not what happened with the TERC. Instead, we find the abuse of power by individuals in the Committee was baked into its design. Chief Minister Michael Gunner had followed the lead of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and declared a program for a 'gas fired recovery.'

Messrs Henderson and Liveris were invited, in fact instructed, to pursue opportunities for their fossil fuel interests in the name of 'building back' the NT economy as the nation sought to return to work after the disruption of covid lockdowns. It's not corruption of that abuse was always intended.

dirty? yes. anti-democratic? somewhat. but corrupt? dishonest? no. This was more like the respectable CLP style of proudly owning their worst intentions.

post-truth petrochemistry

The real starting point of this NT ALP government's total abandonment of the electorate really came with the referral of plans for an unprecedented project to build a massive new gas industry hub at Middle Arm.

Community advocates quite understandably seized upon components of this ambitious plan: the intention to invite tennants for gas-fueled production plants of petrochemicals including amonia, urea, ethylene, methanol and so-called 'clean' petroleum. In addition to the environmental harm such tennants would present, advocates warned about the harm to human health, particularly on the nearby suburbs of Palmerston. Local paediatricians and international experts alike warned of impacts including a population wide increase in childhood cancers.

And that's when it got messy. In November 2022, Chief Minister Fyles indignantly denied that the plans for Middle Arm included petrochemicals. Government websites were scrubbed of the word 'petrochemical' and the Chief went on to accuse environmental advocates of lying.

but of course the evidence was everywhere.  

As this darwin.news article describes,

Records and documents of other parties to the MAD Precinct plan still feature the 'petrochemical' label.

These included various EPA documents, the TERC progress report, and the NT investment commissioner.

The Middle Arm business case submitted to Infrastructure Australia; evidence by CEO of Tamboran to a senate inquiry; the 'enabling infrastructure' video submitted by NT Government to the feds; fact sheets; commissioned reports - all provide various details of firm plans for petrochemical industries sited at Middle Arm

To this day, the Chief Minister continues to maintain the charade, which is - hilarious, but also disturbing for anyone who values democracy.

dirty? yes. anti-democratic? yes. dishonest? yes.

but corrupt?

Well, that depends. A cynic might suggest that this is just the new style of politics, as pioneered and proven by former (and possibly future?) president Trump. Those four years showed just how much can be achieved by forcefully asserting falsehood. If this is what democracy is about (hint: it's not), then maybe it's not corrupt for political leaders to mislead so brazenly.

Chief's shares

12 months later, news broke that the Chief Minister had failed to disclose ownership of shares in Woodside, a touted tennant of the Middle Arm Development (MAD) precinct.

The story first appeared on NT Independent, a web-only publication that successive NT Chief Ministers have refused to recognise as legitimate news media. It was soon picked up by other outlets, and the Chief delivered a range of excuses, delaying the obvious response of divesting.

Whereas the other outlets eventually tired of the story, NT Independent was like a dog with a bone, prosecuting a new angle nearly every day for over a week. Ms Fyles did herself no favours, choosing to argue the point from various directions before eventually, finally, doing the obvious thing she should have done years ago and divesting the small shareholding at the centre of conflict-of-interest claims.

dirty? more like messy. anti-democratic? meh. dishonest? well, somewhat. corrupt? hardly.

The Chief's handling of this issue did engage some deception and misdirection. Where she should have immediately relinquished the small holdings in Woodside, she wasted time and squandered credibility on dishonestly reframing the situation as a non-issue. Her response probably had the utility of allowing those who wanted to support labor to cling on to specious detail in order to believe she had done nothing wrong: the shares were a gift from her grandmother; it was only 159 shares, valued at little more than $5000; they were originally Rio shares, which transitioned to Woodside shares at a later date; she did eventually declare them (albeit later than she should have); she did eventually divest (but not without a lot of media pressure).

Of course, none of these details counters the fact that the Chief Minister, and her colleagues, exhibited disregard for standards regarding declaration and divestment of conflict of interest. But ultimately, the incident was more illustrative than material. Fyles' fumbling of a meager shareholding showed us that the NT still does not have adequate controls to adequately discourage any more substantial conflict of interest.

More lies - emissions offsets

On 4th December, it was The Guardian who found evidence of what many suspected. Despite repeated assurances, NT Government had no intention of meeting the recommendation from the Pepper scientific inquiry, that all domestic emissions from fracking should be offset.

The scientific inquiry into fracking presented 135 recommendations - all of which the NT labor government had promised to implement. Environmental advocates had challenged the status of many, but none was more controversial than recommendation 9.8

When initially proposed, the expert panel baulked at the idea.

So the appearance of this key recommendation in the final report might have caught other parties off guard.

This recommendation then became a focal point for climate activists who pondered how the industry could possibly proceed while respecting the requirement to offset domestic emissions. Research by the Australia Institute warned that the annual cost of doing so would start in the billions, and could rise as high as $53b.

Freedom of Information requests uncovered correspondence within the NT Department of Environment, which warned:

Full implementation of recommendation 9.8 would place the NT at a competitive disadvantage in attracting gas production and related downstream development

NT Renewables and Energy Minister Eva Lawler sought to share responsibility for this weighty recommendation with the Commonwealth and other states, all of whom pushed back.

When Chief Minister Fyles, upon lifting the fracking ban, made the bewildering declaration that all recommendations had been met, she was squarely contradicted by the independent officer overseeing the implementation of the requirements, David Ritchie.

My report makes it very clear … that [with recommendation] 9.8, we've still got Scope 2 emissions that have not been accounted for.

So back in May this year, it was already apparent that the Chief's claim to have accounted for this requirement was false.

But the magnitude of this deception was only truly realised this week, when the Guardian reported, again on the back of FoI documents, that a draft policy to implement the recommendation was officially abandoned following industry objections. This shows that the NT Government had explicitly abandoned draft plans to meet recommendation 9.8 more than six months before Chief Minister Fyles claimed to have done so.

dirty? filthy. anti-democratic? determinedly.

corrupt? It's not obvious that NT Government had any clear responsibility to consult beyond the gas companies, and they say the views of other stakeholders were well known.

but dishonest? absolutely. And a reckless abandonment of truth such as this can only be a corrupting force in politics. To my reading, this deliberate deception, on a key focal point in the controversy over the new industrial threat of shale gas fracking, obliterates this NT ALP Government's credibility.

But wait: there's more...

Lobbyist on staff

The following day, NT Independent was back at it, this time with evidence that Chief Minister Fyles' most senior advisor owned a consultancy that employed a registered lobbyist for fracking company Tamboran.

Talk about adding insult to injury.

On Monday, we'd learned that NT Government officially abandoned their commitment to meet Recomendation 9.8 from the Pepper report after extensive lobbying from the gas industry.

On Tuesday, we learned that a gas industry lobbyist is employed in the Chief Minister's office as a senior advisor.

To be precise: Gerard Richardson, Ms Fyles' chief political strategist, owns a consultancy (Brookline Advisory Pty Ltd) in partnership with Lidija Ivanovski (Paul Henderson’s former media adviser) that is registered as the official Commonwealth lobbyist of fracking company Tamboran Resources.

dirty. anti-democratic. dishonest. corrupt.

The only way is out

Despite her predecessor's promises to institute a new era of integrity, it appears that NT integrity and anti-corruption controls remain so weak that this Chief and her cabinet might be able to evade appropriate official and legal scrutiny of these severe misdemeanours. But with credibility shattered, it is essential, for the sake of democracy, that this labor government be discarded at next year's election.

By all estimates, the success of the federal Labor government in securing support for an effective climate safeguards agreement has left the NT ALP out on a limb.

Twelve months ago, only weeks before the federal election, Territory Labor spent parliamentary time celebrating how neatly their agenda dove-tailed into Morrison's "gas-fired recovery".

Now they're left stranded, alongside those who backed their (wildly) ambitious sloganeering of a fossil-fueled $40b economy.

Previous parliaments imagined an easy path to economic independence, by simply saying yes to the next big fossil fuel project to come along. Territory Labor’s ‘boundless possible’ approach, shirking a 2030 emissions target, aimed to hold the gate open to a greedy resource grab before allowing the reality of net-zero to dawn on the Territory.

Now, requirements to fully offset all domestic emissions of new fossil fuel projects up front will likely render those pending projects unviable.

The new path, of actively planning an economy to suit the needs of people who live in the Territory, is more challenging, but entirely achievable. A win for the climate needn’t be a loss for the NT economy.

The days of fossil fuels were already numbered, and it is in our favour to pivot sooner rather than later.

Now, here's a piece of recent history:

Back in 2005, the NT ALP were up for re-election for the first time ever.

2001 had seen the historic election of the Territory's first labor government. After languishing in opposition for decades since Self Government, labor had got a grip on power, and they weren't about to let it go in a single term.

Labor's 2005 election strategy was two pronged.

stealing the redneck vote

On the right, they caught the CLP by surprise by seizing the issue of 'problem drinkers' (ie homeless Indigenous people). In fact, labor surprised everyone by adopting the CLP's 'tough talking' approach to the uncomfortable realities of homeless people who come to Darwin from the wide catchment of poorly serviced remote communities in the Top End. They promised mandatory rehabilitation for alcohol-related crime, and apparently surprised partner organisations who they declared would help impose 'standards' on itinerant visitors.

This proved outrageously successful for their campaign. The CLP leader, Denis Burke (accurately) accused them of trying to steal his red neck voters. His voters didn't take kindly to being labelled as such, and he was left effectively, and obviously, out-manouevered. The labor party's logic was that breaking a few eggs (endorsing the gutter politics of slandering homeless Indigenous people) is the price of a good omelette (decimating the old guard of the CLP).

On the left, labor took a more measured approach. But campaigning during the election period by a number of environment groups highlighted concerns about land and water management in the Daly River catchment. This coupled with the largest ever field of Greens candidates to participate in an NT election. So although labor hadn't brought any policy or preparation targeting that constituency, in the final hours they ramped it up.

No uranium

On the Friday before polling day, Chief Minister Clare Martin made a surprise declaration: no more uranium mining.

It was a surprise, because until that moment, uranium mining had not been raised. The vague threat of a nuclear waste dump had been floated by the feds a week out from the poll, but we were still a while away from the uranium rush that was to gather pace over the following year. Uranium mining was just not on the political landscape. And although the announcement was consistent with federal ALP policy at the time, it wasn't NT policy.

That position didn't hold long - the re-elected labor government was issuing exploration licenses to uranium miners just two weeks later, and the fact it was abandoned in a couple of months illustrates the spirit in which Ms Martin's announcement was made. Having successfully taken what they could from the right during the campaign, labor were reaching to the left by election day.

Don't risk the Daly

The outgoing parliament had presided over a looming land-grab in the Daly River region, illustrated by an advertising campaign down south that promised "free water" to new land holders. Environmental groups, both local and national, had started to raise concerns. These moves risked replicating the errors of the Murray Darling Basin in a region that notoriously suffers an annual drought; the Dry Season. A certain Controller of Water was heard to quip that maybe we needed to make those mistakes to qualify for the federal remediation funding...

Despite their role in engineering the threat, labor effortlessly pivoted, declaring that only they could be trusted to wisely manage the risks posed by new agricultural development. And that's how we came, on election day, to find the polling booths of left-leaning electorates plastered with upside-down green triangles. Here's a momento:

A casual observer might think this poster, with a prominent green triangle, was branding of the Greens party. Looking more closely, we see it was a labor message with branding bearing similarity to a Greens logo.

I think the logic goes like this: the Greens political party 'stole' the yellow triangle from the Franklin River Dam blockade, so it was fair game for labor to repurpose it too.

well, fair enough. I guess. The CLP wore it better next time, but that's another story.

This story's about the labor party, and what they stand for.

Because what they stood for in 2001 regarding homeless Indigenous people was not what they stood for in 2005. What they stood for regarding uranium mining in June 2005 was not what they stood for a month later when they were issuing exploration permits. And what they stood for regarding protecting the rich natural values of the Daly River region in 2005 is not what they stand for today.

2023 - Risk the Daly

Today, it seems the NT ALP are not only risking, but intent on harming the Daly. Only this time it's not just the Daly. Similar threats face the Roper, and there's recently been a large land-clearing application near Katherine.

Now we have an NT ALP government who not only permit land clearing in the region: they're approving illegal clearing, within cooee of the Daly River. I guess issuing a permit after the act is more absolution than approval.

And whereas the argument in 2005 was over bore licenses, today's NT ALP are pushing ahead with plans for floodplain extraction, under policies which grant agriculturalists discretion over whether they believe a permit is required to harvest floodplain water, leading lawyers to warn:

Economic pressure

Cotton farming is one of the few planks in the NT Government's ridiculously ambitious goal of building a $40b economy by 2030 that hasn't suffered a significant obstacle. Origin backed out of the exploration of the Beetaloo Basin (though someone else took up their lease); Santos are facing a two year delay to their Barossa gas project after successive legal losses over flawed consultation; the pivotal ship-lift project has suffered delays and cost-blowout; and SunCable has entered administration - all in the context of an economy that is forecast to shrink considerably this financial year in the wake of $AUD inflation.

The fact that prospects for building a cotton industry on the back of unwise landclearing and water extraction remain vastly over-stated will do little to temper the NT Government's urgency to look like something - anything - is building.

Environmental resistance

This pressure is being met with resistance from an environment movement that is well informed by the values statements gathered last time, as well as a more finely tuned appreciation of the compounding impact of accelerated climate chaos on regional freshwater resources.

Grass roots environmental organisations have joined traditional Owners and local residents to form the Territory Rivers campaign alliance. They've released a report which highlights accelerated land-clearing and warns against large-scale floodwater extraction.

While environmentalists will undoubtedly be looking at NT government to make a pivot from risking to protecting the Daly, it remains unclear that the 2023 NT ALP will be as agile as their 2005 predecessors.

See also: https://cottonkillsrivers.org.au/

This week's appearance of representatives of the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources put some meat on the bones of recent ABC reporting over the vastly under-estimated emissions anticipated from fracking the Beetaloo Basin. But more importantly, clarified that the Commonwealth would merely advise the NT on how they might pursue offsets for this huge carbon burden.

39Mt of carbon a year is far beyond what could be saved by immediately converting all NT electricity supply to solar; or by massively expanding our carbon farming / fire management successes across the NT. In fact, this huge, unmanageable carbon bomb would - according to the economists at The Australia Institute - require purchasing credits that cost around $500M at current prices, but can be expected to reach a cost of over $4B by 2030, and up to $50B the following decade.

As discussed elsewhere, these are billions that the NT just doesn't have. Fracking the NT seems like just another plan for piling on unmanageable debt.

See the exchange, and transcript, below:

Senator WATERS: Great. The figures that I have from the Clean Energy Regulator, or CER, website show that the most abatement that we've managed to secure in any one year is 20 million tonnes, which is to be delivered in 2021-22. Do you think it's possible to double those abatement levels?

Mr Fredericks : I think that's asking for an opinion.

Senator WATERS: Well, it's based on technological capacity and policy settings. The most we've been able to abate so far is 20 million. Is it theoretically possible to do better than that?

Ms Evans : Absolutely. We think it's theoretically possible to do better than that.

Senator WATERS: Do you think getting to 120 million tonnes a year would be feasible?

Senator Birmingham: You're not really putting any parameters around your questions, aside from the theoretically possible. I'm not sure that that is a reasonable grounds to expect officials to respond to questions on.

Senator WATERS: On the abatement options available to us at the minute, is 120 million possible?

Mr Fredericks : I don't think that's a question we can answer. I'm happy to take it on notice so we can give it consideration.

Senator WATERS: Thank you. The reason I'm asking is that the department has advised the minister that between 39 and 117 million tonnes of emissions would be released each and every year through the Beetaloo gas project. The Northern Territory government wants to offset it. You found it a bit challenging to say that we could do better than 20 million. You wouldn't give me an answer on whether we could reach 120 million. That's potentially what the Beetaloo gas project could be releasing every year. If it needed to be abated as the NT government insists, is that feasible?

Ms Evans : I just need to correct a couple of things that you have said. You said that it was our briefing to the minister that contained the reference to the 117 million tonnes.

Senator WATERS: Is that not correct?

Ms Evans : That's not correct. That figure is a reference in a meeting, which has been recorded. The reference was made by a Northern Territory government official. We understand that they were referring to a particular number that is in the Senate inquiry into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory. The number is not a comparable number to anything we would use to measure Australia's emissions or report on in terms of our target.

Senator WATERS: Why not?

Ms Evans : For a number of reasons. The first is that that number, which comes from the report, is a number that reflects both emissions in Australia, which are ones that we would be using to refer to our target, and emissions associated with gas that might be burned overseas.

Senator WATERS: Are you saying that the 117 million includes scope 3?

Ms Evans : That's correct. In addition—

Senator WATERS: So what about—

Ms Evans : If you don't mind, in addition, that figure uses a global warming potential number which is based on a 20-year period, which is inconsistent with the guidelines for reporting on greenhouse gas emissions under the IPCC. So we use a 100-year global warming potential. These things are set out in specific guidelines. Actually, the 39 tonnes is the one at that scale that is consistent with the way we would report our emissions or our emissions towards our target in Australia. The 117 is simply another characterisation of that which uses a number of assumptions that are entirely inconsistent with the way we calculate our inventory.

Senator WATERS: Based on the normal methodology that you would use, you would say that it's more like 39 million tonnes a year, which is scope 1 and 2 in 100 years?

Ms Evans : That is the figure that was in the hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory report. It is referring to what the maximum level might be from that field. I would have to say that it is quite speculative. We're still talking about a field that is under development.

Senator WATERS: Yes. So what would be your assessment of the Beetaloo's emissions potential year on year, then? That is what I seek to understand.

Ms Evans : We would draw on that report to say, at the point once it's operating, we think there is the possibility that it might get as high as 39 million tonnes per year. But there's still a long time to go to work that out. And it's possible that it may only be as small as five.

Mr Fredericks : I think the evidence in the report was that it was a range, which you would expect in an issue like this. At this stage, that is obviously quite speculative. I think the range that was provided was five to 39.

Senator WATERS: That is scope 1 and 2 using the 100 years, not the 20 years. Is that correct?

Ms Evans : Yes. That's right. I beg your pardon. I have to check. Even that figure includes, I think, some scope 3 emissions. We might have to double-check that last part, sorry.

Senator WATERS: Come back to me on what your assessment is so I can cite with confidence the emissions projections.

Mr Fredericks : We'll take that on notice and come back with an assessment that obviously will provide you with all the relevant qualifications to assessment.

Senator WATERS: Yes. Thank you. If we've only managed to abate 20 million tonnes so far in our best and most successful year under ERF, and Beetaloo is between five and 39, how does the government envisage meeting the Northern Territory's demands for those emissions to be offset?

Ms Evans : Again, I think that's a matter of opinion. It's certainly possible to generate that volume of emissions credits. This is a market based—

Senator WATERS: Using ERF?

Ms Evans : It's a market based approach, so supply will always respond to a growth in demand. We would expect it to be possible to find those offsets.

Senator WATERS: Using the ERF with the existing envelope of money?

Ms Evans : I should clarify that this is a commitment by the Northern Territory government.

Senator WATERS: Hasn't the government agreed to meet that commitment?

Ms Evans : We've agreed to work with them to help them meet the commitment.

Senator WATERS: You've not finished that yet?

Ms Evans : We will continue to talk to them. We've had discussions with them about the different tools that are available from the Commonwealth's perspective. We have certainly talked to them about the Emissions Reduction Fund and what is available through that, which is not just the dollars that the Commonwealth puts into it. That's a whole framework that generates abatement credits. So not all of the abatement credits are purchased by the Commonwealth government. In this instance, for example, we could have a discussion about whether the Northern Territory government might start purchasing some abatements to meet their commitment to offset Beetaloo.

Senator WATERS: Have you finalised the offset agreement?

CHAIR: Senator Waters, how much longer do you want?

Senator WATERS: On this topic, maybe two or minutes would be great. Have you finalised the offset agreement with the NT government?

Ms Evans : I don't think there's a formal agreement per se. The commitment from the Commonwealth was to work with the Northern Territory, which we are certainly doing and have done already.

Senator WATERS: But on what? I thought it was on an offset agreement?

Ms Evans : It's on helping them to understand how they will meet their objective of offsetting the emissions from that field.

Senator WATERS: Using the Commonwealth? Are you guys going to also help with the abatement, or are you just telling them how they could do it with their own means?

Ms Evans : We don't know the outcome of that yet. We're still considering that.

Senator WATERS: I see. I thought the Commonwealth had actually committed to partner with the NT government to abate the emissions from this massive carbon bomb gas basin.

Ms Evans : We are willing to work with them.

Senator WATERS: On how they will right that. I didn't realise it was not even a commitment to do that. My last question on this topic is: has the department provided updated advice to the minister regarding the implications of emissions from the Beetaloo on the Paris targets?

Ms Bennett : We haven't provided updated information, as far as I'm aware.

Senator WATERS: Updated. When was the last time you provided information?

Ms Bennett : The last briefing would have been in October last year. That is the one referred to. I will check. The last briefing would have been in July 2019.

Senator WATERS: What was your advice about the emissions potential of Beetaloo at that point?

Ms Bennett : At that point, it could be between five and 39 million tonnes a year.

Senator WATERS: And you haven't updated that one yet?

Ms Bennett : No. Not in terms of the formal brief.

Ms Evans : Again, I will clarify that there would be no need to update those figures because they are the ones in the hydraulic fracturing report in the Northern Territory. They have not changed, nor has the 117 million tonnes number, which has been in the press in the last few days. It was also in that report based on those very different assumptions that I explained before. So nothing has changed for us to change our advice on.

Senator WATERS: Except your progress on the Northern Territory collaboration, hopefully.

Ms Evans : Sure.

An embarrassing report this month revealed, via Freedom of Information, that NT Enviro minister Eva Lawler was selected as the patsy for delivering a controversial announcement regarding a government grant to build a new grandstand for the turf club.

It'd attract attention any time, given the unique status of bookmaking - indeed, any gambling - in the NT, but with the Territory suffering our worst ever bust, coming off the unprecedented boom of the large Inpex gas project, those with an eye on debt had fair questions about priorities and value.

But Ms Lawler must have been good for it, because this week she was trotted out again, in parliament and on TV, to make another difficult announcement. And this one is illuminated by yet another FoI discolosure.

Under fire in a by-election from the NT Greens, who have slammed Labor's record on fracking, the minister was called upon to read a 20 page speech, claiming environmental achievements over the past four years. Dumbed down for low-attention spans, this was reduced to a general claim (on TV) and factoid (for social sharing).

Trouble is, a chunk of the claimed achievements were actually the process of making hydraulic fracturing a regulated activity. Actions claimed to be environmental wins (eg changes to the Water Act) turn out to in fact be enabling instruments, that have the perverse effect of protecting operators from liability for routine contamination.

But most glaring is the juxtaposition of claims to a climate policy (whch looks more like a directionless discussion paper). No clues are provided about how a long-term 'aspirational' emissions target might be met in the face of massive new emissions from fracking.

And this is where the next FoI comes in.

A recommendation from the Pepper Inquiry, that provided cover for NT Labor's fracking agenda, required NT and Commonwealth governments to co-operate on offsetting the estimated annual NT emissions from fracking, of 26.5 - 38.9 Mt CO2e. Analysis of the Inquiry's data show that the moderate scenario represents a whopping 4.9% increase to Australia's emissions.

So Chief Minister Gunner wrote to the PM in 2018, informing him that fracking would go ahead, begging for a greater cut of royalties, and requesting the recommended assistance.

The response?

Easy-peasy. We've already committed to meeting and beating (by cheating?) our Paris targets, and its going so well (???) we can just wrap up another 5% in that.

...

So where does this leave the NT, and in particular Minister for the Environment Eva Lawler?

Relying solely on the Federal Liberal Government to make good their empty assurances on Paris. and then some.

Clearly, NT ALP's claims to enironmental achievement have a few holes. Regulatory reform related to fracking would be better recognised as enabling legislation, rather than environmental protection.  Meanwhile, a vague climate policy is crueled by a failure to describe how the huge emissions from fracking might be offset. At an estimated cost of over $4b, it seems like another case of piling debt upon debt.

With raging bushfires, water shortages and successive record-breaking temperatures, researchers have noted the unprecedented preponderance of the word 'unprecedented' in news reports over the past month.

and in a move that has shocked seasoned observers, even merdeoch outlets are admitting: this is worse than we've seen before.

Linguists assure the media monitors that the word's recent autological status should pass in a matter of years.

Energy policy in the NT is subject to competing fallacies, that are variously aired to justify either enthusiasm for fossil fuel exploitation, or timidity towards domestic solar.

When we're exporting LNG as fast as we can pump, at whatever price the first taker might offer, that gas is a transitional fuel that will somehow help global economies move to clean safe cheap renewable energy. Concerns about the local risk to precious finite water resources from fracking, or the un-addressed burden of fugitive methane emissions from existing gas plants, are carelessly dismissed as a small price to pay for producing a fuel that is (slightly?) cleaner than coal, and presents the amorphous value of a Transition Fuel.

But when it comes to nurturing the emergent domestic solar industry, past investment in gas power is the basis of arguments for caution. Those investors brave enough to dream big are reminded that the Territory's already paid for another 15 years of fuel for our gas-fired power stations. Those sensible enough to pitch a medium-scale grid connected solar plant are obstructed with unrealistic demands from the grid operator, including unfeasible performance standards in forecasting output. New solar players are also told they need to provide large on-site battery infrastructure, which some say unfairly taxes newcomers for the failure of the NT's sole power provider to adequately plan for and invest in a distributed energy future.

How can gas be a transitional fuel when we sell it, but such an obstacle at home? What even is a transition fuel? What role is NT gas playing to move the world to renewables? and what's the way forward here in the NT?  

transition

You know the story: gas is a transitional fuel. 10 years ago Territorians were told that not only would the Inpex project make us rich (narrator: it didn't) but it would also play a big role in solving climate change. This, we were assured, was because gas is a Transition Fuel; a stepping stone on the way from dirty coal and oil towards truly clean renewable energy solutions.

The value of gas in energy transition is not a fundamental property of the fuel itself, but rather a capacity that might have been realised within the right context. Proponents make big claims for the carbon savings of gas over coal, but fall short on two counts. First, the lack of any international framework within which to assess that new gas has actually displaced pre-existing dirtier coal; and secondly, the growing evidence of previously un-measured and under-estimated fugitive emissions from gas mining and processing. Some analysts warn that the un-accounted and under-accounted carbon burden of gas balloon the claimed 33% less pollution to approach equivalence.

Sure, natural gas burns cleaner than coal. But that's only part of the story; and methane emissions along the fuel chain take some of the shine off the industry's rosy promises.

Even allowing that the full life-cycle carbon burden of NT gas may be less than that of coal, there's no evidence that it has - or ever will - actually displaced coal. Instead, it seems that NT gas - both current off-shore drilling via Darwin LNG plants, or proposed on-shore fracking for shale gas - is going to clients who are growing consumption of all dirty fuels.

Our current big LNG projects - the Inpex Icthyus project, and ConnocoPhillips' Bayu Undan, are sending the full complement of gas to Japan, where new coal plants are still being built. The fracking hopefuls are all looking to export, and although some of those export markets feature declining coal consumption, the uptake in dirty gas outpaces the decline in dirty coal, and none have a credible plan for transitioning beyond these dirty fuels to clean renewable energy alternatives. So even where gas is facilitating less reliance on coal, it is not being done within a framework of reducing emissions or transition to renewables.

So its unsurprising that gas isn't helping the NT pursue our official target of 50% renewable energy by 2030

Another selling point of the 'transition' capacity of gas is that it can pair well with renewables. The ability of gas power plants to run at low capacity, then spin up to match short-falls in intermittent supply, makes a coordinated grid incorporating existing gas and new renewable generation a useful match.

Or so the story goes. Here in Darwin, the government-owned entities that run the gas, and operate the grid, don't share enthusiasm for this transitional potential. Instead, they require connection agreements for new renewable projects to commit to high frequency forecasting, backed by significant penalties for non compliance. Instead of moderating gas to facilitate cleaner generation, this mob seem more interested in maximising gas consumption, to minimise the risk of the spectacularly bad 'take-or-pay' deal. Now, not only has Italian oil company Eni secured this generous deal with Power Water Corp (who have to pay for the next 15 years of gas whether they use it or not), they've also bought out the Territory's largest approved solar farm. I'll let you connect the dots...

gas -> solar

The initial premise is incorrect. Gas is no more a transition fuel for our export markets than it has been for the NT. But that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to fatalism that dictates our past investments in gas justify delaying solar innovation. The challenge for the Territory is as it remains for the world: to cut ties to the polluting energy fuels of the past, to make way for cleaner, cheaper sustainable solutions.

Last week, the NT  Chief Minister was unrecognisably pleased to announce agreement for a NAIF loan to build ship-lift infrastructure in Darwin. The Chief's mood has been dragged by a recent police shooting; announcement of a strong opponent for his seat in next year's election; spectacular failure of the Alice Springs power grid to juggle solar input on a cloudy day; and an equally spectacular dumping by outgoing former colleague Ken Vowles.

But none of these challenges match that of a weak, under-performing economy, punctuated by rising unemployment, business closures and a depressed housing market. This visualisation, from the NT Department of Treasury and Finance website, says a lot: at the time when the massive Inpex LNG project is celebrating their export volumes, the rest of us are doing worse than we were a year ago - and investment for the future is way down.

Attempts to up-sell the economic potential of on-shore gas exploitation have had to be moderated with real-talk acknowledging long latency, demands for exploration stimulus and uncertain viability. At the other end of the energy industry spectrum, the SunCable solar project is welcome activity, but one that has advanced (so far) independently of government. Little else on the economic horizon seems more likely, and every announce of spending, no matter how welcome, has invited closer scrutiny of growing debt.

So it's quite understandable to see the Chief grinning at finally securing federal support for a ship lift facility in Darwin.

Beyond the welcome busy-work of construction, the ship lift represents valuable infrastructure that offers new capabilities for diverse economic activities, spanning existing operations such as defence, LNG, fishing and pearling, while offering new jobs and opportunities in ship building and repair. Billed as the largest such facility in Australia, Mr Gunner rightly describes it as "a strategic investment which will open up the investment potential of the region"

Depending who's asking, there may also be some work for the facility by visiting foreign forces, although the USA's Merchant Marine Act 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, muddies the waters there: requiring American workers for American ships. Just like their Independence, this one looks like a good idea that we should try here in Australia.

It sure looks like good economic news: some jobs and activity in the short term that will open up further opportunities once operational. And that's a welcome story, given the state of the Territory economy.

territory in decline

A useful appreciation of the state of the economy is commonly obscured by the political blame game. Opponents of the labor government will lazily put it all at the feet of Michael Gunner, while the Chief (equally disingenuous) blames the mess left by his predecessors.

Neither simple explanation feels quite right: our current woes can't all be pinned on one questionable grandstand build, or a squandered port sale. But just how far back in history do we need to look to understand how we got here? Standard procedure when you find yourself in a crazy situation is to look back to the last sane moment you remember, and for the NT, that'd have to be before Inpex came to town.

The Territory 'won' the Inpex LNG plant with promises of less red tape than the initial target of WA - weasel words for a lower standard of regulation. The win was announced in 2008, but approvals took another 2 years, and it wasn't until 2012 that a final investment decision was made. The project threatened to be a 'game-changer', the biggest single project Darwin would ever see, growing the economy 5% each year over the construction period. The newspaper talked of a $50b bonanza, which in a matter of weeks had calmed down to $33b - what's a few billions between friends:  if the predictions weren't precisely accurate, they captured the vibe. This was boomtime.

Anyone could've predicted the bust.

In fact many did. Local unionists and Traditional Owners joined forces to try to ensure that, if nothing else, some young locals would get apprenticeships and solid employment experience during the construction phase. If any of our politicians had tried half as hard to prepare for the inevitable post-boom decline, we'd undoubtedly be in a much better position today.

So just what is that position? and how does it compare to the pre-boom economy?

disclaimer: I'm just a simple conspiracy theorist. I'm not afraid of numbers but I'm not trained in finance, so claim no expertise:  just quoting treasury

Growth is a tricky one. Many of us would have had that conversation by now; we can see that there's been a lot of economic activity (construction) in and around our town; but we sure as hoop didn't get a piece of it. The NT economy is of course larger now than it ever has been. So why do some of us feel worse off?

Let's start by looking at growth per-capita.

That was a huge peak during construction, but it's well and truly history: GSP per capita is almost back where it was before NT Gov and Inpex started courting.

If we look at wages, the problem becomes clearer:

after the significant peak in wages growth at the start of the Inpex construction period, wage growth has steadily slowed, until this past financial year, where wages have fallen (almost -2%). Most of us know a mate who made bad financial decisions based on what they were earning 7 years ago. I saw a few new boats begrudgingly offloaded around the 2016 mark. When individuals suffer bad personal financial decisions like that, its unfortunate for them and their families; when governments do it, its a dereliction of responsibility.

New boats aside, for most of us, the real point of wages is to meet the costs of living. And that's where the story's worst. On this measure, the benefits of the boom were moderated, while the impact of the decline is pronounced.

and I think this describes the failure that is Inpex. They've had their way with our living harbour, which drove a lot of other construction activity, while diminishing the capacity of local workers to meet our costs of living.

There's a couple of other basic measurements to call out. I won't do housing, because I think it's confusing. It was infuriating to see real locals priced out of town by high rents and unaffordable property prices. And I guess it must be frustrating if you need to leave now but can't afford to sell at current prices. But I'm not going to discuss the housing market pre and post Inpex, cos I'm not confident about interpreting the information correctly.

But this, I can read:

That big dip in employment does correspond with population decline, which moderates it somewhat - and the NT unemployment rate is about the national average. But NT is not a great place to be unemployed (or young, or old, or sick, etc) and this one graph represents real pain for Territorians. I know a few blokes recently out of work, and having a real tough time at it. Where the wage price index shows that workers need to economise to get through each month, that growing proportion of unemployed have the impossible mission of meeting rising costs with subsistency welfare that remains pegged well below the poverty line.

sharing the blame

Clearly, the Territory's current predicament comes from an arc that extends from the Inpex agreement, ten years ago. While Gunner's mob haven't covered themselves in glory, failing to conform to their own budget or maintain staffing caps, its ridiculous to hold them entirely accountable. But its just as wrong-headed to pin it all on the disgraced Giles government. Some have blamed the CLP for allowing the budget to go into deficit, and debt to grow, at a time when they might have been safeguarding the economy. But Giles was just one among the past five Chiefs have held the gate open to the Inpex project without any discernable plan to prepare us for this, the inevitable post-construction decline.

If I had to pick a scape goat, it'd be Paul Henderson. He was Chief when the deal was formalised, making him best placed to plan for the present. Maybe someone should give him a medal. As economics Professor Rolf Gerritsen from CDU's Northern Institute described in this article:

"nobody said, 'well how is this project going to distort the economy?'  
and then start a conversation with the public in the NT about … what's  going to happen"

sharing the solutions

comment below :)