Developing the Northern Territory’s shale and tight gas resources could add as much as $1 billion per year to gross state product and $50 million annually to Territory coffers, averaged over the two decades from 2020, according to a report produced for the main gas industry lobby.

Major gas development could also create an additional 4,200 to 6,300 full-time-equivalent jobs by 2040, according to the Deloitte Access Economics report produced for the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association.

But other energy economists this week produced substantially lower figures.

DAE modelled two scenarios: a “success” scenario in which the Territory’s gas production more than doubled from 231 PJ per annum now to 586 PJ per annum by 2040; and an “aspirational” scenario, in which production quadrupled to 910 PJ per annum by 2040.

In the first of these, the cumulative addition to GSP over the two decades from 2020 to 2040 would be about $17 billion, and government coffers would collect an extra $680 million; in the second, the GSP and revenue boosts would be $22 billion and $960 million respectively.

Territory GSP is presently a little over $20 billion annually. There is no tight or shale gas production going on now; all present production comes from offshore.

APPEA Chief Executive Malcolm Roberts, who will unveil the report at the South East Asia Australia Offshore & Onshore Conference in Darwin today, said it confirmed that shale gas had the potential to generate significant long-term economic benefits for the NT.

“Shale gas could become the industry that reinvigorates regional centres such as Alice Springs and Katherine and provides new training and employment opportunities in indigenous communities,” he said.

The “success” scenario envisaged development of two new brownfield LNG trains exporting to overseas markets, a pipeline to the east coast and growth in domestic demand. The “aspirational” scenario envisaged three new LNG trains, a larger supply to the east coast and more growth domestic consumption.

Both scenarios relied on the most ambitious predictions of future demand by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). “As such, they do not necessarily represent expected outcomes. Rather, they are intended to reflect economic benefits that may accrue if the underlying ‘upper-bound’ assumptions materialise,” the DAE report warned.

The Territory government has paid to support hopes of developing a gas pipeline to connect the Territory to the east coast. The Australian understands contributing millions of dollars worth of gas from public contracts to encourage the project has also been discussed.

In a separate report released this week, The Australia Institute criticised the use of public resources to support the pipeline project. The pipeline scheme has been justified on the basis it would lower gas prices on the east coast. But energy economist Rod Campbell, who wrote the TIA report, said other AEMO data showed there was in fact no east coast gas crisis.

He argued that because Australia was now connected to a global gas market, producers would bypass domestic demand and sell for higher prices overseas. He said gas projects were capital-intensive and delivered minimal long-term employment, and that less than three per cent of the Territory’s budget came from oil and gas royalties.