Exposing the Gas Lobby’s Disinformation Machine

EY’s flawed modelling. AEP’s deceptive spin. A call for integrity in climate policy.

We uncovered how Ernst & Young (EY), working for Australian Energy Producers (AEP), produced distorted research that misrepresents the future role of gas in Australia’s energy transition. AEP then used this so-called “independent analysis” to push for new gas fields, pipelines, and long-term LNG export contracts via their lobbying and submission to the Future Gas Strategy, which now supports gas expansion through 2050 and beyond.

Independent analysis by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at UTS confirmed that the scenarios promoted by EY and AEP are not consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Instead, they align with pathways leading to 2–3°C of warming, or rely on unproven levels of carbon capture and storage. Our own investigation further found that EY had used unverifiable scenarios – including 134 non-existent ‘IPCC’ pathways – that inflated future gas demand, and unfairly assumed Australia could carve out a bigger share of a shrinking fossil fuel export market.

Ultimately, the case goes beyond EY and AEP. It exposes how compromised Australia’s major consultancies have become when fossil fuel money is involved—and how their services (from modelling to lobbying) quietly shape government decisions with massive climate consequences.

Our Complaint to the ACCC

We have submitted a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), alleging that Australian Energy Producers (AEP), with EY, made misleading or deceptive claims in its submission to the Federal Government’s Future Gas Strategy.

The complaint raises three serious issues:

  1. Fabrication and distortion of modelling data

  2. Overallocation of gas to Australia, in breach of equity obligations

  3. Systematic omission of evidence on CCS failure

The ACCC has prioritised greenwashing in its 2025–26 enforcement strategy. We believe this case is a critical test.

We have also included EY in our submission to the Senate inquiry on Information Integrity.

LEtter to ACCC:

Potential misleading or deceptive conduct by Australian Energy Producers and EY

AEP is the peak body for oil and gas producers in Australia. It represents 52 full members who account for 95% of national petroleum production, and includes over 100 associate members – among them all major consultancies EY, PwC, Deloitte and KPMG.

AEP strategically used the EY report to push for new gas fields, pipelines, and long-term LNG export contracts, via their private lobbying and submission to the Federal Government’s Future Gas Strategy, which now supports gas expansion through 2050 and beyond.

Since publishing the Future Gas Strategy in May 2024, the Federal Government has approved 12 major coal and gas projects, and issued 9 offshore exploration permits for gas supply, with projected lifetime emissions reaching billions of tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. This expansion directly contradicts the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 pathway.

Report Findings

The EY Report Doesn’t Hold Up to Scrutiny

What UTS found

We commissioned the University of Technology Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) to conduct an independent review of the submission and EY’s modelling for Australian Energy Producers. ISF compared these claims against 1.5°C-aligned transition pathways and concluded that “the submissions support for a role for natural gas that is more consistent with dangerous global warming of more than 2–3˚C, than with 1.5°C pathways”.

Evidence of data manipulation

Our own analysis found:

Built on phantom / misclassified scenarios
EY claimed to have analysed “around 350 net zero pathways”. Yet 267 of these were drawn from the IPCC’s C2 category – scenarios that dangerously overshoot 1.5°C and predominantly reach global net zero emissions after 2050. EY also reported 267 C2 scenarios when the IPCC database contains only 133, meaning 134 of the scenarios it cited simply do not exist.

Inflated allocation for Australia
EY’s scenarios quietly hinge on Australia taking a bigger share of gas exports in a shrinking global market. This assumption appears only in passing: “Australia gains a greater share in a declining global gas market.” By hiding such a pivotal assumption, EY created the false impression that Australian gas expansion could be compatible with climate goals. In reality, this runs directly against the Paris Agreement’s equity principles, which require developed countries like Australia to cut fossil fuel use faster, not claim a larger slice of what little remains.

“AEP, with the support of EY, produced sophisticated disinformation that misled policymakers and influenced the national climate strategy to expand gas production and delay the energy transition under the guise of credible analysis.

This kind of disinformation is called data washing, and it’s particularly harmful because it’s so hard to spot. It positions itself as an independent technical assessment and uses the language of expertise and the aesthetics of research to embed fossil fuel-friendly narratives deep within the policy-making process. The so-called ‘independent research’ gives vested interests a veil of credibility, which they exploit to lobby parliamentarians and the broader public, distorting the framing of policy debates.”

Executive Director, Climate Integrity

Claire Snyder

How AEP Leveraged the Modelling to Influence Policy

Despite EY’s flawed modelling, AEP promoted it as “independent analysis” in public lobbying and media, omitting caveats and uncertainty. In its Future Gas Strategy submission, AEP claimed the modelling proved “new gas supply is needed in all net zero pathways” and used it to push for new fields, pipelines, and long-term LNG contracts.

The Federal Government’s Future Gas Strategy now backs gas through 2050 and beyond – a position that closely echoes AEP’s claims, while contradicting the IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 pathway. Since the strategy’s release in May 2024, 12 major coal and gas projects have been approved and 9 offshore exploration permits issued, with lifetime emissions in the billions of tonnes CO₂-e.

This alignment highlights how flawed modelling can be repurposed as disinformation – data-washing gas expansion, delaying the transition, and providing political cover for industry interests.

No Isolated Incident: EY’s History of Flawed Modelling & Climate Misconduct

This case study is not an isolated incident for EY, which has a history of using and defending misleading and flawed modelling to serve its fossil fuel and political clients.

2019

EY acquires management consultancy Cadence.

Prior to the acquisition, Cadence produced an economic assessment for Gloucester Resources’ Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine which was subsequently slammed by a NSW Land and Environment Court judge as incorrect, lacking “evidentiary foundation”, and at odds with government guidelines. (2)

2021

EY’s team - including former Cadence personnel - used the same discredited modelling for SIMEC Group’s proposed expansion of the Tahmoor Coking Coal Mine.

EY’s economic assessment of the mine inflated the mine’s economic benefit by hundreds of millions, and its use of the discredited modelling ignored the prior court findings that such techniques were not aligned with assessment guidelines. (3) EY doubled down to defend the work.

EY worked for Santos while advising the NSW Government on Narrabri gas policy.

EY received a $67,375 NSW government contract to help shape the official “Future of Gas” statement – which endorsed Santos’s Narrabri gas development – without disclosing that it was simultaneously providing assurance services to Santos. (4)

2022

EY used flawed modelling for Glencore’s Glendell Continued Operations Project in NSW.

The NSW Independent Planning Commission’s review - conducted by the Department’s independent economic expert - produced an assessment showing the project would have less than one-fifth of the value to the NSW economy than EY’s valuation. The Department’s expert refuted EY’s assessment of the values attributed to coal price, company and payroll tax, worker and supplier benefits, and greenhouse gas emissions. (5)

EY fuels disinformation during the 2022 Federal Election.

EY used discredited modelling to serve the political interests of its client, Master Builders Australia. The report grossly exaggerated the economic cost of Labor’s plan to disband the Australian Building and Construction Commission. EY’s analysis was widely criticised, including by Senators and the University of Sydney economist, with numerous faults that rendered it “effectively anecdotal, empirically empty, and useless”. (7) (8)

Our engagement with EY

We have formally engaged EY’s leadership on the findings of its report for AEP, and set out three key requests:

  1. Publicly acknowledge that the AEP report was inconsistent with its own climate objectives and to issue a statement recognising its shortcomings.

  2. Greater transparency by publishing EY Oceania’s internal screening process for contracts with fossil fuel companies and industry associations, alongside a clear commitment not to provide research or advice that promotes the expansion of coal, oil, or gas.

  3. Review its membership of AEP, given the group’s role as one of Australia’s most obstructive lobbyists on climate and the reputational risk created by EY’s ongoing association.

In our communication, we also made clear that AEP’s use of the EY report raises serious concerns of misleading conduct, and that we had prepared a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). We emphasised that this is an opportunity for EY to show leadership, align its services with climate science, and set a new standard for integrity in professional services.

While EY acknowledged our concerns and welcomed the dialogue, the firm has indicated that it will take no immediate action on the steps we have outlined.

Consultancies Must Account for Their Impact

Consulting firms like EY market themselves as climate leaders – but many still take on projects that enable fossil fuel expansion. The impacts are indirect but powerful: through modelling, branding, lobbying and legal advice, consultancies shape the narratives and policies that decide whether new coal, oil and gas projects proceed.

These downstream effects are what we call serviced emissions – the climate consequences of professional services. EY didn’t drill a well or build a pipeline, but its modelling gave political cover for AEP to argue that new gas fields were “needed in all net zero pathways.” That makes EY part of the problem.

To restore integrity, we believe consultancies must:

  • Screen clients and projects for alignment with the Paris Agreement.

  • Align their modelling and advice with the Paris Agreement.

  • Disclose work in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying.

Until that happens, consultancies will continue to quietly shape policy and public narratives in ways that fuel the climate crisis.