North West Shelf gas extension will deliver ‘almost nothing’ to Australia’s public purse

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Experts Critique North West Shelf Gas Project Extension for Lack of Public Benefit"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The recent decision by Australia's Environment Minister, Murray Watt, to extend the North West Shelf gas project license until 2070 has drawn significant criticism from environmental and Indigenous groups. Experts argue that this extension will not contribute positively to Australia's energy transition or its public finances, as the project primarily benefits Woodside Energy and its foreign partners without delivering substantial returns to the national treasury. Despite Australia being the world's third-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with exports valued at nearly $70 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, the financial contributions of oil and gas companies to the government remain minimal. For instance, the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) collected from these companies was only $1.1 billion, with Woodside contributing $175 million from the North West Shelf project in the previous fiscal year. The taxation structure, allowing for generous deductions on capital expenditures, has led to a situation where many profitable ventures do not pay their fair share of taxes, raising concerns about the effective management of national resources.

Economists like Chris Richardson and Alison Reeve emphasize that the current taxation framework is inadequate and does not reflect the true value of Australia's gas resources. They argue that the PRRT, designed to tax excess profits from resource extraction, fails to deliver a fair return to the public. The debate has intensified regarding the proposed development of further offshore gas fields that could exacerbate the existing tax issues. While some argue that extending the project could lead to lower gas prices in Western Australia due to local reservation policies, others contend that it will not address the broader challenges of energy costs and availability on the east coast. The consensus among experts is that Australia must reform its resource taxation policies to ensure fair compensation for its natural assets and prepare for future resource booms, particularly in emerging sectors like lithium and cobalt, which are vital for the energy transition.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights concerns regarding the extension of the North West Shelf gas project in Australia, emphasizing its limited benefits to the national economy and the negative implications for the country's energy transition. The piece raises questions about the effectiveness of current taxation policies on gas companies and the overarching impact on environmental and Indigenous communities.

Economic Implications

Experts assert that extending the gas project license will not substantially contribute to Australia’s energy transition. While the country benefits from being a major liquefied natural gas exporter, the tax contributions from oil and gas companies remain minimal compared to their revenues. The figures presented indicate a disconnect between the profits generated by companies like Woodside and the financial return to the public purse, suggesting that there are systemic issues in how these companies are taxed.

Social and Environmental Concerns

Environmental and Indigenous groups have expressed disappointment over the approval of the project extension. This indicates a broader societal concern regarding the prioritization of corporate profit over community welfare and environmental sustainability. The article seems aimed at raising awareness about these issues and galvanizing public opinion against policies that favor corporate interests over ecological and social responsibilities.

Possible Hidden Agendas

While the article does not explicitly mention it, there might be underlying issues or narratives that are not fully explored. For instance, it could be attempting to draw attention away from other governmental decisions or policies that could be less favorable to the public. By focusing on the gas project, the article may divert public scrutiny from other pressing matters.

Manipulative Elements

The tone and language of the article could be perceived as having a manipulative quality, particularly in how it portrays the profits of gas companies against their tax contributions. The framing suggests a deliberate choice to highlight negative aspects of the gas industry while potentially downplaying the complexities of energy transition policies.

Comparative Context

When compared to other articles within the energy sector, this piece aligns with a growing trend of critical scrutiny directed at fossil fuel projects amid global discussions about climate change and sustainable energy solutions. It reflects a broader narrative that is increasingly scrutinizing the role of traditional energy companies in the context of a shifting energy landscape.

Broader Implications

The information presented could influence public opinion, potentially affecting future energy policies and political decisions. The framing of the gas industry as a minimal contributor to the national economy may lead to calls for reforms in taxation and regulation, impacting both the industry and the government’s approach to energy transition.

Target Audience

The article seems to resonate more with environmental activists, Indigenous rights groups, and the general public concerned about climate change and economic equity. It seeks to engage readers who are critical of corporate influence in government decisions and advocate for more sustainable energy practices.

Market Impact

From a financial perspective, the article could affect investor sentiment towards companies like Woodside and Santos, particularly if it leads to increased public pressure for regulatory changes. Stakeholders in the Australian energy sector may need to assess how such narratives influence market perceptions and the future viability of fossil fuel investments.

Global Context

This discussion is relevant in the larger context of global energy dynamics, especially as nations grapple with transitioning to renewable energy sources. Australia's role as a significant LNG exporter places it in a complex position regarding international energy markets and climate commitments.

Artificial Intelligence Influence

While it is unclear if AI was used in drafting this article, the structured presentation of data and arguments could suggest some level of algorithmic assistance. AI models might have been employed in data analysis or in crafting a persuasive narrative to enhance readability and engagement.

The article raises critical questions about the sustainability of current energy practices and the fairness of corporate taxation, reflecting a significant concern for many Australians regarding their economic future and environmental health. Overall, the piece serves as a reminder of the ongoing debate surrounding fossil fuel dependency and the urgent need for policy reform in line with global sustainability goals.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Extending the licence for the North West Shelf gas project won’t assist Australia’s energy transition, experts say, even as it allowsWoodsideand its foreign partners to profit from the nation’s mineral wealth while delivering “almost nothing” to the national purse.

Environmental and Indigenous groups were dismayed this week after the environment minister, Murray Watt,granted conditional approvalto extend the Woodside Energy-operatedNW Shelf gas projectout to 2070.

The decisioncomes amid reports the Albanese government may consider creating an east coast gas reserve to prevent predicted shortfalls in domestic gas supplies over coming years.

Australia is the world’s third-largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter after the US and Qatar, exporting nearly $70bn worth of the fuel in 2023-24. Austraila’s proven gas reserves are more than 40 times the country’s annual consumption, alongside a bounty of unconventional gas resources.

Despite the huge revenues generated by exporters such as Woodside, Chevron and Santos, oil and gas companies contributed only $1.1bn in petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) in 2023-24, according to budget papers.

Woodside paid $175m in PRRT from the NW shelf project in 2022-23, according to the Australian Taxation Office.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

The 40% PRRT is levied on offshore oil and gas projects once they become cash-flow positive, which usually takes years or decades because of generous rules that allow capital expenditure to be fully deductible upfront when assessing the PRRT liability.

This last allowance has meant the hugely profitable east coast LNG producers have yet to pay any PRRT, although a tweak to the deductibility rules in August last year will force them to begin paying some tax.

While the owners of the long-running North West Shelf project pay the resources rent tax, which is in addition to the 30% corporate income tax, experts believe the settings do not place a high enough underlying value on the extracted gas, and too much on the value added through the manufacturing process, which is not liable for PRRT.

The independent economist Chris Richardson argues that the resources rent tax has proved entirely unfit for purpose.

“It is fair to say that how we tax gas in Australia is a massive fail,” he said.

“This is a national asset and Australians deserve a return, as indeed do the miners. This is something that should be shared. The problem is that Australia struck deals that ended up resulting in little tax from extracting the resources that we all own, and so the big gains go to owners of those businesses.”

The $30bn proposed development of other offshore gas fields to feed Woodside’s Karratha plant on the Burrup peninsula would, if it goes ahead, again be used to offset PRRT liabilities.

Sign up toBreaking News Australia

Get the most important news as it breaks

after newsletter promotion

Alison Reeve, the deputy program director of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, said extending the life of the project would have no impact on the major national policy challenges of power costs, availability and reliability.

“It might lower prices in WA because under WA’s gas reservation policy a certain amount of gas needs to be put aside for domestic use,” she said.

“But WA already has lower gas prices than the east coast, and it will do nothing for east coast gas prices.”

The NW Shelf project was essentially a huge export project, Reeve said.

“There’s no benefit from this project to Australia’s energy transition at all.”

She said Australia had largely missed the opportunity to properly tax the gas boom but it must get the settings right in time for the next resources boom.

“If, as part of the energy transition, we are going to be exporting lithium or cobalt to the world, then we want to start pricing resource taxes properly now so we can actually do better next time.”

Bob Breunig, the director of the Australian National University’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, said resources rent taxes were highly efficient as they levied excess profits rather than production.

Lobby groups and gas companies have long argued a less generous PRRT would lead to a drop in investment, but Breunig said the evidence did not support that argument.

“Norway has really high rent taxes and it doesn’t stop companies drilling because they are still making profits,” he said, saying a rent tax of 50% in Australia would not be too high.

“The PRRT is a great structure for a tax. Really it’s about fiddling with its setting.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian