Australia's national gas shortage mirage

It is a case of now you see it now you don’t, courtesy of a rapacious gas industry and the governments which blindly support it............

SHORTAGE!

Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) , media release, 28 February 2017:

Australia urgently needs more gas supply and more gas suppliers to head off a supply shortfall forecast for 2019.

APPEA Chief Executive Dr Malcolm Roberts said the report released today by AiGroup shows customers will pay a heavy price for government bans on developing new gas supply.

“Gas is no different to any other commodity – you restrict supply, you push up prices,” Dr Roberts said.

“We have the bizarre situation of State governments banning new gas projects and then complaining about higher gas prices.

“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Productivity Commission and a host of independent commentators all agree that stifling supply can only lead to higher prices.

“Yesterday, the ABS released data showing gas exploration is at its lowest level since 2005.

“Today, the AWU is calling for the Commonwealth to force Australian gas producers to tear up their contracts.  We need billions in investment to unlock new gas supplies but the AWU’s approach would kill investment overnight.

“There is no shortage of gas which can be developed to supply all of our local and export customers.

“Just as our agricultural industries have the capacity to supply export and domestic markets, so does Australia’s east coast gas industry.  Our LNG exporters are also the major suppliers to the domestic market.

“People concerned by the impact of higher gas prices on local customers should be arguing for the removal of unnecessary restrictions on developing new resources, not more heavy-handed regulation.

“The AiGroup report simply reinforces what APPEA has been saying for years – that gas customers will pay higher-than-necessary prices if restrictions on developing new gas projects continue.

Dr Roberts said it was ironic the AWU’s call for intervention to renegotiate export contracts came on the same day that domestically‑focused Cooper Energy and the APA Group announced a $605 million investment in developing the Sole Project to supply east coast gas market.

“Changes that increase the cost of exploration and production in Australia will place future investment – like that required for projects such as Sole – at risk,” he said.

WHAT SHORTAGE?

We find that although a “gas-price crisis” exists in eastern-Australia, a gas-supply shortfall is very unlikely to occur. Our review finds that the size of AEMO’s forecast shortfall is very small, amounting to no more than around 0.2% of annual supply.

In addition, only eleven days after announcing its supply-gap concerns, AEMO essentially closed the gap when it published, on its website, updated (lower) electricity-demand forecasts that therefore lead to less demand for electricity generated by burning gas. [University of Melbourne, Australian-German Climate and Energy College, Tim Forcey and Dylan McConnell, 2017, A short-lived gas shortfall]

However, it is also important to note that the total gas supply in Eastern Australia has expanded rapidly in recent years, and the key domestic issue is more to do with the gas price that is now dictated by linkages to international trade, than the supply.

In addition the combination of falling renewable and storage costs means alternative options for the electricity sector will be cheaper than developing relatively expensive unconventional gas resources such as coal seam gas. [University of Melbourne, Australian-German Climate and Energy College, Dylan McConnell, 2017, IS THE AUSTRALIAN GAS SHORTFALL A MYTH?]

The Guardian, 18 May 2017:

A predicted shortage of gas for electricity generation in Australia from 2018 will not eventuate, and the recent surge in domestic prices will not be mitigated by opening up new coal seam gas fields, according to a new report.

In March, the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) predicted that without national reform, Australia would face gas shortages, which would drive power outages, in 2018 and 2019.

“If we do nothing, we’re going to see shortfalls in gas, we’re going to see shortfalls in electricity,” Aemo’s chief operating officer, Mike Cleary, told the ABC at the time.

Despite being described by some as “major”, the actual shortfall of electricity from the gas shortage amounted to the equivalent of less than 24 hours over a 13-year period, according to the new report by Tim Forcey and Dylan McConnell at Melbourne University’s Australian-German climate and energy college.

In any case, less than two weeks after Aemo predicted the shortfall, it published an updated forecast of how much electricity would be needed in the period. It downgraded the previous forecast and completely wiped out the predicted shortage.

The Melbourne University report, which was commissioned by the Wilderness Society and Lock the Gate, also noted that later in March Shell announced it was proceeding with its “Project Ruby” that involved 161 gas wells in Queensland, and also would have closed the shortage, if it were real.

Turnbull Government will increase support for gas industry and coal seam gas exploration if re-elected on 2 July 2016

It has come to my attention that a number of people living on the NSW North Coast believe that the threat of coal seam gas mining in the Northern Rivers region has gone away because communities so successfully resisted Metgasco Limited’s commercial plans to create gasfields in our midst.

Unfortunately, although the immediate threat may have abated the longer-term threat remains all the same, as these excerpts from the 6 June 2016 address to an Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) conference by Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia Josh Frydenberg clearly show:

I’d like to acknowledge my fellow speakers, APPEA Chairman, Bruce Lake, APPEA Director and Country Chair for Shell Australia, Andrew Smith, and the Honourable Dr Anthony Lynham MP.

I would also like to acknowledge APPEA more generally, and its CEO in particular, Dr Malcolm Roberts, for their constructive engagement and contribution to good policy that is in the national interest.

It’s great to join you for your annual conference, my first since being appointed Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia.

Since that time I have always sought to:

·         highlight the incredible contribution you make to Australia’s economic performance;

·         be a passionate advocate for the work your members do to support jobs and grow the Australian economy;

·         celebrate the successes of the industry, including first gas at APLNG and Gladstone LNG on the East coast and at Gorgon on the West coast; and

·         champion the extraordinary innovation in the sector, from Shell’s Prelude FLNG facility to the autonomous underwater vehicles operating on the ocean floor at the Pluto project.

These early experiences have highlighted the importance of building on Australia’s strong international reputation as a reliable energy supplier and attractive place to invest, as well as the innovative and resilient nature of the people working in the sector….

Importantly, our LNG export capacity will continue to ramp up through several new projects which have recently commenced production and further projects which are under construction and due to come online over the next few years.

These projects together total around $200 billion in capital investment.

They include three Coal Seam Gas based LNG projects in Queensland (Queensland Curtis LNG, Gladstone LNG and Australia-Pacific LNG) which commenced production over 2015 and early 2016….

The continued sustainable development of the nation’s mineral and energy resources is a priority for the Turnbull Government.

Our policies will:

·         cut red tape, including streamlining environmental approvals processes;

·         drive jobs and growth by cutting taxes;

·         create new market opportunities;

·         de-risk exploration;

·         support innovation; and

·         increase community engagement and understanding.

We stand by our record since being elected.

The carbon tax is gone; so is the mining tax.

In just two years, we have cut more than $4 billion per annum in red tape.

The Coalition remains committed to one-stop-shops for onshore environmental assessments and approvals, having achieved it for offshore petroleum activities in Commonwealth waters…..

At the same time as we create new export opportunities, we are very focused on attracting greater investment by de-risking exploration.

We understand that exploration is a necessity for the industry – and that’s why we are committed to making Australia as competitive as possible.

As announced in the Budget, the Government will provide $100 million to fund the Exploring for the Future programme to be delivered through Geoscience Australia over the next four years.

Exploring for the Future will produce a resources prospectus covering targeted areas of northern Australia and parts of South Australia.

This programme will deliver new pre-competitive geoscience to assist industry in better targeting onshore areas likely to contain the next major oil, gas and mineral deposits…..

Firstly, our Growth Centre Initiatives.

National Energy Resources Australia (NERA) was launched earlier this year, and is one of six industry-led Growth Centres.

The Growth Centres are tasked with driving collaboration, innovation, and international competitiveness in targeted areas of competitive strength and strategic priority in the Australian economy.

The sector focus for NERA is oil, gas, coal and uranium – Australia-wide – and covering the full breadth of industry activities from exploration and development, construction, drilling, production and operations, to decommissioning…..

The Coalition has committed $15.4 million over four years to NERA with an additional $17.2 million for Project Funds to be matched by industry on projects with sector impact…..

APPEA plays an important role in enhancing the transparency around industry activities. At the last COAG Energy Council, I proposed and the Council agreed that APPEA would produce an annual unconventional gas activities report to provide a consistent, national information source on activities across all jurisdictions.

Among other things, this report will include, where available, the number of wells drilled, the number of land access agreements in force, the extent and type of community engagement, and the contribution unconventional gas activities make to government revenues.

But we must also acknowledge that there are members of the community that have raised concerns about the processes involved in developing gas from unconventional sources.

These concerns must be discussed and addressed if we are to successfully develop the new gas supplies necessary to support Australian homes, businesses and the broader economy.

The Coalition has been consistent in its support for the responsible development of unconventional gas strongly underpinned by the best available science……

To further our commitment to better inform the community of the scientific evidence in this area, today I announce that the Turnbull Government will make $4 million available for the CSIRO to undertake further research and to engage with the community using the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance, or GISERA model….

State-specific research programs will be established in partnership with State Governments and industry that wish to work with the Turnbull Government to address community questions.

In particular, GISERA will address community concerns by:

conducting new research in key areas such as surface and groundwater, agricultural land management, biodiversity and socioeconomic impacts and opportunities;

·         establishing a Regional Advisory Committee;

·         implementing a communications program using trusted science-based information;

·         generating advice for governments and industry;

·         improving community understanding of the benefits and impacts of onshore gas development; and

·         strengthening the linkages to key stakeholder groups in gas development regions.

We know that there is no substitute for community engagement and robust science if we are to bring more gas to the market.

I look forward to working with my State and Territory counterparts, and the companies operating in each state, to expand GISERA wherever there are communities that would benefit from scientific research into unconventional gas activities…..

It is clear that your industry is absolutely critical to the continued strength of the Australian economy.

As we now continue the transition to the production phase of the current resources boom, and look to take advantage of future opportunities, we must not compromise all the hard work and investment that has got us to this point.

Sadly, under pressure from the Greens, the Labor party has managed to destroy the vital bipartisanship which existed for over a decade under Ian MacFarlane, Gary Gray and Martin Ferguson in this area of national economic importance.

Australian Financial Review, 26 April 2016:

Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg has acknowledged as recently as last month that the gas market needs to be reformed but, on the back of the ACCC report, has suggested the answer lies in pipeline regulation and moving away from blanket moratoriums on "certain" gas developments – meaning bans on CSG developments – which should instead be managed case by case. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 June 2016:

The big environmental issue of the last NSW election was coal seam gas. And while the gas industry and its lobbyists keep waiting for the controversy to go away, gas looks set to play a major role in the federal election too.

To recap, the NSW government's support of CSG hit the Nationals hard at the state election. They lost one formerly safe seat and lost another. The Libs took notice – CSG info sessions were then held in Northern Sydney Liberal branches.

The government killed off some gas projects, hoping to put gas on the – ahem – back burner, but recent events continue to turn up the heat in NSW and beyond…..

It's a point worth thinking about. No matter how much gas we produce, our prices are now linked to the Asian market.

The gas industry knew this, of course. In fact, companies like Santos boasted to investors that opening up gas exports would mean they could charge Australian gas users global prices.

The industry said nothing, however, to governments. The Economic Impact Assessments submitted to state planning agencies barely mentioned the impact on Australian gas prices.

Australian manufacturers have been hard hit. They now compete with foreign buyers of gas and can pay double or triple previous contract prices. The ACCC found that for a period no gas suppliers would make gas available to Australian manufacturers. 

Deloitte Access Economics found that the increase in gas prices as a result of CSG exports could cost manufacturers $118 billion by 2021, most of which will go to the gas companies in a $81 billion windfall.

The salt in the wound for manufacturers is their lobbyists let this happen. After insisting CSG was an "exciting opportunity", last year Innes Willox, head of the Australian Industry Group admitted that they had "sleepwalked into gas exports".

With so much interest in gas issues and voters clearly ready to punish politicians who get gas wrong, there is plenty at stake in the coming election.

The Greens position is simple – they oppose all CSG and most other gas developments.

The Coalition is in a difficult spot. Pro-industry Liberals are unlikely to sign up for anything the gas lobby doesn't want, but it isn't their voters that are likely to care.

The Nationals are still smarting from their electoral losses in NSW. They're the ones that will get burned if Greens and Labor can make local angst on gas count in federal electorates.

Labor senses this, pledging to extend the "water trigger", which makes more gas projects likely to need federal environmental approval. The gas industry responded with immediate condemnation.

Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association's nonsense response to a coal seam gas study is exposed

DeSmogBlog 19 November 2014:

In August 2012, two Australian research scientists attached a highly sensitive spectrometer to a vehicle with a GPS tracker and took a 700 kilometre drive around gas fields in Queensland.

Starting at 3.30am in the morning, Dr Isaac Santos and Dr Damien Maher, of Southern Cross University, wanted to measure the levels of methane and carbon dioxide in the air around coal seam gas fields operated by BG Group, formerly known as British Gas.

Twelve hours of driving took them past fields with about 300 wells that tap coal seams to release gas, often with the help of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology.

They also drove past other areas where you might expect levels of methane to be high such as wetlands, fields of cows and sewage treatment plants.

The researchers found methane levels at the gas fields were triple the background levels.

The chemical fingerprints of the methane they detected near the gasfields — known as isotopic signatures — matched those from the gas produced from the wells.

Methane is important because as a greenhouse gas it is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide over the course of a century.

Santos and Maher made their findings public at a forum and in a submission to the federal government. They also sent them to a journal for peer review.

Predictably, the industry group Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) attacked the scientists claiming — wrongly — that they had targeted the gas fields while ignoring other potential sources of methane.

At that time the Federal Resources Minister was Martin Ferguson.

He joined in the attack on the scientists, characterising them as unprofessional media opportunists — a claim he had made without having actually read the scientists' submission.

This week, the research from Maher and Santos was finally published in the journal Water, Air and Soil Pollution. The paper reads:

Data from this study indicates that unconventional gas may drive large-scale increases in atmospheric CH4 (methane) and CO2 concentrations, which need to be accounted for when determining the net [greenhouse gas] impact of using unconventional gas sources…

Considering the lack of previous similar studies in Australia, the identified hotspots of GHGs and the distinct isotopic signature within the Tara gas field demonstrate the need to fully quantifyGHG emissions before, during and after CSG exploration commences in individual gas fields.

The findings are identical to the initial publicized research. The response from APPEA is similarly identical.

The gas industry lobby group has again attacked the scientists, repeating the criticisms addressed two years previously as if time had stood still.

Astonishingly, APPEA reported it had written to Southern Cross University Vice Chancellor Peter Lee two years ago with a series of questions, but “no response was ever received”.

In fact, DeSmogBlog understands Lee wrote back to APPEA on 20 November 2012, defending the work of the scientists at his university and defending their right to speak about what they had found.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time that Lee had written back, rejected APPEA’s assertions and also accused them of issuing a “misleading” press release.

According to APPEA, the group asked four questions of the researchers and their findings. The questions seem to me to be more an effort to produce doubt, rather than to produce responses. Repeating them now when all the answers are in plain sight adds to this suspicion.

APPEA first asked if the work was being peer reviewed – the answer to that now seems clear.

APPEA asked if the university would “provide GPS data highlighting exactly where and how many readings/measurements were recorded in the Tara area, on which roads and when”.

The original submission clearly shows detailed maps of where the measurements were taken. Maher told DeSmogBlog that the university had also shared GPS and data with the Queensland state government’s GasFields Commission. One of the commissioners is Rick Wilkinson, the chief technical officer at APPEA…..

APPEA asked if the researchers had taken into account “other potential sources of emissions such as naturally-occurring hydrocarbon seeps” even though it was made clear in the original submission that the researchers had done this by taking measurements at locations including “wetland, sewage treatment plant, landfill, urban area and a bushfire”.

Maher said:

We surveyed 100’s of km’s inside and outside of the gas fields. The high methane concentrations were not found directly outside of the gasfield, in spite of identical geology and topography, etc.

Our research cannot definitively say how the gas is escaping to the atmosphere. What we can say is that it had the identical chemical fingerprint to the gas within the coal seam, and that we did not find any similarly elevated concentrations directly outside of the gas field, i.e. as soon as we drove out of the gas field theCH4 (methane) concentrations returned to near background levels for 100s of kilometres.

The data indicates that [the increased levels of methane] is related to some of the activities or infrastructure within the gas field which is leading to gas of an identical chemical fingerprint toCSG being released to the atmosphere……

Finally, APPEA said it had asked if “other potential sources of emissions such as large scale feedlots” had been taken into account. A section of the journal paper read that during the surveys:

… a number of other potential point sources were observed including the following: vehicle emissions (from passing cars), wetlands, a combined sewage treatment plant and landfill site, an abattoir and cattle holding complex, urban areas, and a bushfire.

Read the full post here.

Coal seam gas industry's peak body APPEA refuses to reveal to Baird Government how much gas it estimates members will to be able to deliver to the domestic market in NSW

The NSW Parliament’s General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on 20 August 2014 has revealed that the Baird Government has no idea if supporting the coal seam gas industry in this state will actually produce affordable gas for the domestic wholesale/retail market.

In response to a question from the Hon. Rick Colless: I am sure you are aware of the Gladstone LNG terminal development. What impact will that development have on gas prices for New South Wales customers?

The NSW Minister for Resources and Energy Anthony Roberts answered in part:

The development of Gladstone will fundamentally change the east coast gas market. All the gas that we had previously available to us in New South Wales will now also be available for export.

It has been predicted that prices could as much triple once the export hub is fully operational…..

However, it is regrettable that the east coast gas market is also faced by issues of transparency. I am not aware of any public policymaker in Australia who has a detailed understanding of how much gas is being contracted to overseas customers. I am not aware of any public policymaker that knows whether the east coast gas market has the ability to deliver this without causing domestic shortfalls. I am not aware of any public policymaker that knows what penalty provisions apply should the exporters fail to deliver on their promises.

It concerns me greatly that the parties to these joint ventures may have overcommitted themselves believing domestic supply may have come on faster than it has and in greater quantities. Frankly, I find this a completely unacceptable situation. …..

as I have stated many times before, if you cannot measure you cannot manage. We cannot continue to tolerate a situation where Australian policymakers are being, quite frankly, left in the dark.

I understand that individual players in the industry may have commercial-in-confidence arrangements that they do not wish to be made public. However, I have repeatedly asked the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association to work to aggregate this information so that it can be presented to government and the public. To my great disappointment, they have continually refused to do so. For this industry to gain a social licence in New South Wales it is vital for it to be transparent and to demonstrate how the development of this industry will benefit the State of New South Wales.

I feel this sentiment was captured well by the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, who, reflecting upon the gas situation on the east coast, stated:

It's a hard narrative to sell to the community, to a government that we are going to increase production of gas and we

are going to export and, in the meantime, domestic supplies might be diminished and domestic prices will go up.

Further to that he stated:

I am a politician and I am pretty good at selling a story but I would find that a tough one to sell.

Instead of enthusiastically supporting this industry it might be wise for the NSW Government to adopt a precautionary approach and assume that if the gas industry refuses to share information then the likely cause is that it is attempting to conceal the fact that it has been consistently telling untruths to governments ministers, departmental heads, members of parliament and local government councillors for many years.

Even Metgasco Limited, which tries to make much of its alleged plan to supply gas to local businesses in the Casino district of northern NSW, cannot disguise the fact that high on its wish list is enough money to finance the Lions Way Pipeline (LWP) which would send gas from any future wells up to the export hubs in Queensland and not into other parts of New South Wales:

Metgasco’s independently assessed 2P and 3P reserves well exceed local (Northern Rivers) gas demand.   As such it plans to supply gas to the eastern Australian and international gas market.   We have considered a number of different alternatives to supply its gas to these markets.   At present the most attractive and preferred option is to build a pipeline from the Casino / Kyogle area to tie in to the existing Roma –Brisbane pipeline in Queensland.

The majority of the work required for an environmental approval has been completed on both sides of the NSW / Queensland border.  The main outstanding work is the cultural heritage studies.  When project planning commenced, it was envisaged that this project would be assessed under the NSW Part 3A process.  Metgasco has agreed with the NSW government to transition the project to the new SSD process, with approval work already completed under Part 3A able to be used in SSD.

The pipeline is approximately 150 km in length and is expected to have diameter of 450mm.  It will be buried for its entire length, typically to depths of 900mm - 1,500mm.  It is estimated to cost in the order of $145 million....

Metgasco will recommence activity on the LWP when it decides to restart other field activities in the Clarence Moreton Basin.

The Sydney Morning Herald 28 September 2010:

NEW South Wales-based gas company Metgasco will assess an ambitious bid to partner with LNG Ltd and transport its coal seam gas more than 500 kilometres to Gladstone where LNG Ltd is planning to construct a liquefied natural gas plant for export.

The companies have signed a memorandum of understanding and will jointly fund a feasibility study into the plan. Under the plan, gas from Metgasco's Clarence Moreton Basin in northern NSW would be piped to Fisherman's Landing in Gladstone. The possibility of developing the LNG plant in the Port of Brisbane is also being considered.

Metgasco says if the project is judged to be economic the company could select a preferred LNG option next year. One of those options is a floating LNG platform. Metgasco says it has also signed a separate memorandum of understanding with Norwegian-listed FLEX LNG to evaluate building the project offshore. Metgasco's 2239 petajoules of proved, probable and possible gas reserves are located on the coast, unlike many other coal seam gas projects, making the option a consideration. It says its resources could supply an LNG plant up to 3 million tonnes a year of gas over 20 years.

Metgasco managing director David Johnson said the company was well advanced in developing the Lions Way gas pipeline, which will transport gas from northern NSW to south-east Queensland.

Is the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association playing dirty online?

This breathtakingly misleading article appeared at Upstreamonline on 23 June 2014:

Click on image to enlarge

Bianca Bartucciotto, who elsewhere describes herself as a journalist-in-training, writes on the oil and gas industry.

However, she obviously hasn’t done her homework as the court has not ruled in coal seam/tight gas exploration and mining company Metgasco Limited’s favour in Metgasco Ltd v Minister for Resources & Energy [2014] NSWSC. 

On the date this Upstream article was posted legal proceedings had not moved much beyond the NSW Government’s formal response to the amended summons, submitted to the court by Metgasco on or about 7 July 2014.

In fact, as Metgasco, APPEA and presumably Ms. Bartucciotto are aware, no evidence will be heard in this matter until October this year at the earliest.

One can be forgiven for harbouring a suspicion that Ms. Bartucciotto relationship with the Australian gas industry is closer than that of a reporting journalist writing for an industry newspaper:

In fact, whether the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) or members of its board are shareholders in the NHST Media Group, which owns the Upstream website she writes for, is a question hanging in the air right now.

NHST Media Group is certainly listed on the website for the forthcoming May 2015 APPEA Conference & Exhibition as its Upstream business was the official supplier of leading events in the sector, e.g. ONS in Stavanger, the World Petroleum Congress in Moscow and Appea in Perth in Australia.

How do you know when the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association is not telling the truth? It posts on its web site

Excerpt from a Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) news and media web page dated 5 December 2013 :

Some commentators continue to grab the wrong end of the pineapple when assessing the impact of liquefied natural gas exports on greenhouse gas emissions.

Singling out LNG production with scant regard for Australia’s wider industrial processing and power generation sectors provides a remarkably narrow view of a big picture and one which ignores the role cleaner forms of energy, such as natural gas, play in helping reduce greenhouse emissions.....

The Dept. of Environment’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory March 2013 quarterly update states:

Annual emissions for the year to March 2013 are estimated to be 557.0 Mt CO₂-e. This represents zero growth in emissions when compared with the year to March 2012. For the year to March 2013, there was a decline in emissions from electricity (section 2.1), reflecting lower electricity demand and changes in the generation mix. This decline was largely offset by an increase in fugitive emissions (section 2.4), resulting from increased production activity in the coal mining and natural gas sub-sectors....

Fugitive emissions occur during the production, processing, transport, storage, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels such as black coal, crude oil and natural gas. Emissions from decommissioned underground coal mines are also included in this sector. In the year to March 2013, fugitive emissions accounted for 8% of Australia’s national inventory.

Fugitive emissions from fuel extraction have increased 3.8% in trend terms in the March quarter 2013.

Annual emissions in this sector have increased by 12.7% over the year to March 2013. This annual increase was driven by a 6.3% increase in raw black coal production and a 12.9% increase in production of natural gas...... [my red bolding]

This is Sally Oelerich and her views are "very much" her own

This is Sally’s Twitter account

These are two of her tweets which have been predominantly pro-mining since she began tweeting

This is the curriculum vitae she supplied to Linkin

With this job description included

And this summary

You be the judge as to whether Ms. Oelerich is being an honest tweeter or merely a paid voice for the petroleum and gas industries

And whether or not she is well-mannered or something else entirely......