Oil

The Age Business Day reports: WE ARE adults here. We know that there will be some very tough trade-offs that will be needed to tackle climate change. But the oil and gas industry is asking too much if it wants Australians to incur the costs of a coal seam gas (CSG) boom, without clearly pointing out the benefits.

Until lately it was widely assumed that gas is a cleaner-burning fuel than coal, with lower greenhouse gas emissions. The rise of unconventional gas extraction - whether from shale, coal seam or tight sand gas fields - has called that assumption into question, and guess what? The answer is frightfully unclear.

It would be fair to say most of the data is old or industry-funded or based on different practices used for extraction overseas. Or hidden.

The ''We Want CSG'' ads sponsored by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association say coal seam gas burned to produce baseload electricity produces ''up to'' 70 per cent fewer emissions than coal.

"ONLY a few pockets of the Sydney CBD have enough gas to support plans to power the city with a network of trigeneration gas turbines."

The so-called trigen units are locally installed gas-fired plants which generate electricity for buildings and then capture the exhaust to heat and cool them.

They have become increasingly popular in the past year as they can produce electricity for as little as 8c an hour and are three times more energy efficient than coal-fired power.

The City of Sydney has announced plans to install a network of more than 100 trigeneration turbines which it says would meet 70 per cent of Sydney's electricity needs by 2030.

But Simon Bennallack, the national manager of Urban Energy, who has consulted with the council over its plans, says that introduction of a second power network into the city will be far from straightforward.

London may soon follow in the footsteps of Bundanoon, the Australian town that last week banned bottled water and set up drinking fountains for thirsty locals.