In a move that's sure to spark conversation, the Albanese government has unveiled a 'future gas strategy' aimed at keeping the home fires burning without burning a hole in your wallet.

As we all know, energy costs can be a significant concern, especially for those who are often on a fixed income.

The plan, which has already caused controversy, is designed to shore up the gas supply and make it more affordable for millions of Australians.

The strategy outlines Labor's support for new gas projects, including the development of new gas fields and import terminals.

The goal is to ensure that as Australia strides towards a net-zero future, we don't find ourselves in the dark or out in the cold due to power shortages or unaffordable bills.

The government released its ‘future gas strategy’. Image source: Shutterstock

Resources Minister Madeline King has been vocal about the necessity of this strategy, stating that there are 'uses for gas we can't substitute' just yet.

She explained: ‘We hope to (find a substitute for gas), but we don’t know when that will be possible. In the meantime, we can’t have wishful thinking without backup.’

‘The five million households across the country that rely on gas for their heating and energy while we transition to electrification, that gas needs to be affordable, and to be affordable you need reliable supply,’ she added.

As Minister King pointed out, the difficulty is predicting exactly how much gas will be needed to meet Australia's energy needs over the next two to three decades. However, what's clear is that gas will still play a role, particularly in industries that are hard to electrify.

The 'future gas strategy' is not just about keeping the lights on; it's also about supporting the economic transition to net-zero emissions and bolstering industries that are part of Labor's 'Made in Australia' agenda.

To address potential shortages, the strategy suggests that Australia could tap into new gas fields such as Scarborough off the Western Australian coast and Narrabri in northern New South Wales.

But it's not all about drilling and digging. The government is aware of the environmental concerns and the backlash from the Greens, teal independents, and even some within Labor's own ranks.

To mitigate these concerns, the strategy includes measures to reduce emissions from gas production. This includes promoting carbon capture and storage technologies and minimising methane release during extraction.

Furthermore, the strategy aims to prevent companies from hoarding untapped resources, encouraging them to increase gas extraction responsibly.

This is a critical point, as it's not just about finding more gas, but also about using what we have efficiently and effectively.

Before the ink is even dry on the strategy, it has been met with criticism from environmental groups.

NSW Senator David Shoebridge has called the decision to push for new gas mines 'criminal’, citing the urgent need to address climate change.

The debate over gas and its role in our energy mix is complex, and there are no easy answers.

However, it's crucial that we stay informed and engaged in these discussions, as the decisions made today will shape the world we leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

The gas strategy was briefly discussed in this video:

Source: ABC News (Australia)/YouTube​

Key Takeaways

• The government is set to reveal its 'future gas strategy' aimed at bolstering support for new gas fields and import terminals to ensure affordable energy supply.
  
• The plan is in response to predictions of potential gas shortages within four years if Australia's supply isn't reinforced.
  
• The strategy is part of the economic transition to net-zero emissions and includes measures to reduce emissions from gas production.
  
• The announcement has already led to backlash from environmental groups and political parties like the Greens, who argued it contradicts efforts to reduce climate impact.

We'd love to hear your thoughts on this new strategy. How do you think this will affect your energy bills and your comfort at home? Share your opinions in the comments below!

 

[Rob44]

You really believe this government is not useless and inept? Oh that is so precious. Anthropogenic global heating? ROTFLMAO

In a democracy governments usually reflect the intelligence and lack of forethought of those who elect them, particularly when 100% of Australia's electorate have to vote, you included. Read these graphs; I presume you can. Then think.

 

[Luckyus]

Must be gearing up for another election cycle in which from now on any government initiatives will solely depend on this shiity government being reelected. Generally speaking if you want fiscal responsibility? then don't vote Labour.
GIVE ALBO--THE ELBOW

 

[Rob44]

Once upon a time, we used to have the cheapest gas on the planet, then the ALP got in in Victoria (Dan Andrews) who stopped gas supplies in Victoria. Then it all turned to S%^T around the country apart from WA. It is now cheaper to import our exported gas from Japan, yes you read correctly, it is cheaper to buy OUR exported gas by importing it from Japan even while adding the transport costs than what we (unless you are in WA) pay. I will not trust the ALP/Greens/Teals any time they open their mouths. They don't care about you or me, just themselves.

You really believe this government is not useless and inept? Oh that is so precious. Anthropogenic global heating? ROTFLMAO

Here vou all are, the sordid truth of what happens to our gas. The ADGSM was kicked of by Turnbull with Morrison having the LNP's finger also into the pie. It appears that the WTO also has something to say about Australia's ability to withhold gas exports by assorted private corporations; which idiot politician allowed the WTO to impose that on Australia; Keating, Howard?

‘Heads of’ Agreement with east coast LNG exporters​

In 2017, East Coast LNG exporters established an ‘industry-led,voluntary and non-binding agreement’ with the Australian Government committing them to first offer uncontracted gas to the domestic market in the event of a shortfall (p. 21).

On 21 January 2021, theMorrison Government announced it had signed anew Heads of Agreement with major east coast LNG exporters (Australia Pacific LNG, Queensland Curtis LNG and Gladstone LNG). The Agreement commits these exporters to:

• offer uncontracted gas to the domestic market before exporting it overseas and
• regard the ACCC’s LNG netback price when offering gas domestically.

This reflects the design intent of the ADGSM to ensure that domestic gas prices will be no more than the export value of the gas. However, nothing in the Head of Agreement would enable the Australian Government toprevent gas from being exported overseas.

The current agreement operates until 1 January 2023.

Extension of the ADGSM ​

With the ADGSM set to expire on 1 January 2023, the newAlbanese Government has announced it will seek to renew it ‘as soon aspossible’. This will require amendments to the Export Regulations. TheResources Minister, Madeleine King, hasalso announced that the Government will conduct a review of the ADGSM.

In 2020, areview conducted by the then Department of Industry, Innovation and Sciencerecommended that the ADGSM continue operating until 1 January 2023, noting that‘while there have been clear improvements in the eastern gas market, the marketremains uncertain and persisting pressures still need to be addressed’ (p. 5).

The Review noted that while the ADGSM can restrict exports:

• ‘Prices would still be determined by market forces in the event the ADGSM is triggered, and its activation may not deliver a targeted price level’
• ‘[the ADGSM] does not require LNG exporters to increase sales to the domestic market, nor at a specified price’ and
• that ‘it is possible that only a small proportion of any ADGSM-triggered exports would flow to the domestic market as high-cost production may be cancelled or delayed’ (p. 34).

In 2018, as part of its National Platform, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) stated that the ADGSM ‘is a weak and insufficient policy response that would not provide effective price relief for households and manufacturers’ (p. 248). They proposed to introduce ‘a new permanent gas export control trigger, which will be activated if the domestic gas price rises above a benchmark price, to be set, monitored and policed by the ACCC’ (p. 248). The ALP’s 2021 National Platform also referred to support for a ‘a price relatedexport control trigger’ (p. 41).

Trade law risks to reforming the ADGSM​

Any extension of the ADGSM will need to be considered in the context of Australia’s commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization(WTO). WTO rules generally prohibit WTO members from introducing or maintaining any form of export prohibition or restriction other than duties, taxes or other charges, except where they have been ‘temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting contracting party’.

When introducing the ADGSM, the then Resources Minister,Matt Canavan, stated that ‘the ADGSMis a mechanism of last resort to be applied in accordance with ourinternational trade obligations and will only be used if there will not be asufficient supply of gas for Australian consumers’.

 

[Fizzyballs]

Howard screwed us on Gas long ago.
Now Woodside made sure EPA not used on new reserves , W.A. Premier threw it out then felt guilty and quit ,now works for mining firms one owned by Pig exLib Joe Hockey.The Gas Woodside want is not for us but to sell to Asia .
Australia should be self sufficient in Gas and Oil . I worked in oil and Gas exploration there is plenry .But Gov sold us out to OPEC and evil USA Zionists.

 

[David567]

How does this lower our power bill, or any other bill. Nothing will change while Lobor or LNP are screwing the country over. People need to stop voting for these bloody wankers and let someone else screw us over for a change. It can't get any worse.

 

[I'm Mal]

In a democracy governments usually reflect the intelligence and lack of forethought of those who elect them, particularly when 100% of Australia's electorate have to vote, you included. Read these graphs; I presume you can. Then think.

View attachment 48326

Yeah right. CO2 makes up 0.04% (420 PPM) of the earth's atmosphere. Of that 0.03% is anthropogenic. So that miniscule amount of man made CO2 is the switch that makes for catastrophic climate driven events? What a joke!
If CO2 levels get below 200 PPM flora begins to die off and fauna follows soon after. We desperately need more CO2 not less. CO2 is a trace gas essential for life. Plants breathe it. BTW, ants produce 10X as much CO2 as man makes. You never hear politically driven spurious organizations like ipcc rattling and banging about how ants are threatening the planet. ipcc thinks only man and cow farts produce that tiny amount of CO2 that they say is an existential threat.

 

[Rob44]

Yeah right. CO2 makes up 0.04% (420 PPM) of the earth's atmosphere. Of that 0.03% is anthropogenic. So that miniscule amount of man made CO2 is the switch that makes for catastrophic climate driven events? What a joke!
If CO2 levels get below 200 PPM flora begins to die off and fauna follows soon after. We desperately need more CO2 not less. CO2 is a trace gas essential for life. Plants breathe it. BTW, ants produce 10X as much CO2 as man makes. You never hear politically driven spurious organizations like ipcc rattling and banging about how ants are threatening the planet. ipcc thinks only man and cow farts produce that tiny amount of CO2 that they say is an existential threat.

I am well aware of the properties of CO2. It was found to be a greenhouse gas back in 1827 and again in the 1850s. 200 ppm is 0.02 %. Halving it and the globe certainly freezes; doubling it and the global weather changes as do oceanic currents etc and it is those changes caused by a mere doubling of a "trace" amount of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, that will seriously affect 8.5+ billion people who are quite adept at killing each when the going gets tough. If there were merely 500 000 000 of us it would probably not matter that much, except that history is raddled with the monuments of civilisations that have gone because of local climatic changes.

It is not that important that CO2 will induce a warmer global climate, life will go on be it blue-green algae or elephants; it is how we react to climatic changes in protecting our comfort.

 

[Jude1954]

Most of the companies that are extracting the gas from the ground are international companies , so any gas that's collected will go overseas with them . If you want enough gas for Australian homes then cancel the fracking and mining lease of all international companies , allow Australian companies to take over their operations and tell them all gas must remain in Australia at affordable prices . Problem solved and Australins looked after .

 

[Rob44]

Yeah right. CO2 makes up 0.04% (420 PPM) of the earth's atmosphere. Of that 0.03% is anthropogenic. So that miniscule amount of man made CO2 is the switch that makes for catastrophic climate driven events? What a joke!
If CO2 levels get below 200 PPM flora begins to die off and fauna follows soon after. We desperately need more CO2 not less. CO2 is a trace gas essential for life. Plants breathe it. BTW, ants produce 10X as much CO2 as man makes. You never hear politically driven spurious organizations like ipcc rattling and banging about how ants are threatening the planet. ipcc thinks only man and cow farts produce that tiny amount of CO2 that they say is an existential threat.

Ants have been around a few million years longer than H sapiens, so if ants produce 10x what we have produced in 200 years, I'd suggest that you are misguided about ants, or that they had achieved a balanced steady-state CO2 production during the last 50 000 000 years where we have certainly added to it considerably in the last 80 years. See those graphs that I attached. My apologies for adding a bit of science to the argument.

 

[I'm Mal]

Ants have been around a few million years longer than H sapiens, so if ants produce 10x what we have produced in 200 years, I'd suggest that you are misguided about ants, or that they had achieved a balanced steady-state CO2 production during the last 50 000 000 years where we have certainly added to it considerably in the last 80 years. See those graphs that I attached. My apologies for adding a bit of science to the argument.

Science? Is that what you think it is? We have not contributed any more than 0.03% of the 0.04 of CO2. You have been lied to and are gullible enough to blindly believe it. Graphs do not prove anything especially if they are from spurious sources. My apologies for introducing you to real science. I have kept it simple for your benefit.

 

[I'm Mal]

I am well aware of the properties of CO2. It was found to be a greenhouse gas back in 1827 and again in the 1850s. 200 ppm is 0.02 %. Halving it and the globe certainly freezes; doubling it and the global weather changes as do oceanic currents etc and it is those changes caused by a mere doubling of a "trace" amount of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, that will seriously affect 8.5+ billion people who are quite adept at killing each when the going gets tough. If there were merely 500 000 000 of us it would probably not matter that much, except that history is raddled with the monuments of civilisations that have gone because of local climatic changes.

It is not that important that CO2 will induce a warmer global climate, life will go on be it blue-green algae or elephants; it is how we react to climatic changes in protecting our comfort.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of climate change admirably. Nobody disagrees that our climate is changing, just like it always has from time immemorial. The notion that climate change is anthropogenic has been debunked so many times but it appears that the message has failed to be understood by climate warriors such as yourself. CO2 does not induce temperature, the reverse is actually true. Heat induces the release of CO2. The sun is the primary source of heat for the Earth. Solar activity is what drives our climate, not the 0.03% of 420 PPM of CO2 that man contributes. We are currently experiencing a Solar Maximum cycle which happens on average of every 11 years and varies in intensity. I very much doubt that you have the capacity to comprehend this but if you do some research you might possibly learn something about the folly you currently believe about climate. Trying to learn should keep you occupied for a few weeks at least.

 

[Rob44]

Science? Is that what you think it is? We have not contributed any more than 0.03% of the 0.04 of CO2. You have been lied to and are gullible enough to blindly believe it. Graphs do not prove anything especially if they are from spurious sources. My apologies for introducing you to real science. I have kept it simple for your benefit.

Ah well, a true scientist. Assuming that humanity has contributed 300ppm (0.03%) of CO2 to a world where CO2 constitutes 0.042% of our atmosphere (420ppm) I am curious to know why the world was not frozen solid about 200 years ago.

Yes, the sun provides heat that affects our climate. Without the sun we would all be frozen solid. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the several gases, since the sun exists and therefore the CO2 hasn't frozen solid, that helps trap heat before it is reflected into space from the Earth's surface. That heat is what controls how our local weather behaves, and our local weather determines very broadly how civilisations behave, as it does ants. I never saw ants when i was working in Antarctica, as one simple example. Oddly enough just a little CO2 in the atmosphere stops us from freezing. Back around the Pre-industrial era the CO2 "count" was about 0.027% or 270ppm. Remove 150 ppm and that comes to 120ppm and the world returns to a global snowball (see science literature of 1991-1993) . Add 150ppm to 270ppm and you have 420ppm, which helps warm things up; and local climates change accordingly worldwide. Simple to understand, isn't it?

I suggest you prove your claim that those two graphs are from spurious sources.

 

[I'm Mal]

Ah well, a true scientist. Assuming that humanity has contributed 300ppm (0.03%) of CO2 to a world where CO2 constitutes 0.042% of our atmosphere (420ppm) I am curious to know why the world was not frozen solid about 200 years ago.

It would would seem that you elect your notions according to prejudice. I suggest you prove your claim that those two graphs are from spurious sources.

Well well, you have once again proven your ignorance to science and mathematics. Well done son!!!! Man has contributed 0.03% of 420PPM of CO2. NOT 300PPM. 0.03% = 0.0003. So the maths is 420PPM x 0.0003 = 0.126PPM. That is 1.26 parts in 10 million. Now, tell me exactly, how such a miniscule amount of CO2 is harmful and more importantly how can that be the switch that triggers catastrophic weather conditions? Let's see if you can dream up a logical explanation. I will wait.

 

[Rob44]

Well well, you have once again proven your ignorance to science and mathematics. Well done son!!!! Man has contributed 0.03% of 420PPM of CO2. NOT 300PPM. 0.03% = 0.0003. So the maths is 420PPM x 0.0003 = 0.126PPM. That is 1.26 parts in 10 million. Now, tell me exactly, how such a miniscule amount of CO2 is harmful and more importantly how can that be the switch that triggers catastrophic weather conditions? Let's see if you can dream up a logical explanation. I will wait.

Keep waiting; you'll see.

Well well, you have once again proven your ignorance to science and mathematics. Well done son!!!! Man has contributed 0.03% of 420PPM of CO2. NOT 300PPM. 0.03% = 0.0003. So the maths is 420PPM x 0.0003 = 0.126PPM. That is 1.26 parts in 10 million. Now, tell me exactly, how such a miniscule amount of CO2 is harmful and more importantly how can that be the switch that triggers catastrophic weather conditions? Let's see if you can dream up a logical explanation. I will wait.

 

[Rob44]

Keep waiting; you'll see.

ppm	Percent (%)
300 ppm	0.03%
400 ppm	0.04%
500 ppm	0.05%
600 ppm	0.06%

 

[I'm Mal]

ppm	Percent (%)
300 ppm	0.03%
400 ppm	0.04%
500 ppm	0.05%
600 ppm	0.06%

Clearly you just don't get it do you? 0.03% of 420PPM is NOT 300PPM. You have failed a grade 5 primary school mathematics exam. Try the maths again. I am still waiting

 

[Rob44]

Clearly you just don't get it do you? 0.03% of 420PPM is NOT 300PPM. You have failed a grade 5 primary school mathematics exam. Try the maths again. I am still waiting

Pleas explain to Google how Google is publishing incorrect and therefore misleading figures. I am sure whoever runs Google will be happy to discuss matters with you.

And keep waiting; you'll see.

 

[I'm Mal]

Pleas explain to Google how Google is publishing incorrect and therefore misleading figures. I am sure whoever runs Google will be happy to discuss matters with you.

And keep waiting; you'll see.

Now you have proven beyond all doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. The chart you posted is correct 0.03% = 300PPM. But you have simply taken that at face value and made the assumption that CO2 concentrations at 420PPM which is 0.042% of total atmosphere and man has contributed 0.03% of total atmosphere which is 300PPM . If that were correct, you would be right. But you have failed to apply the necessary mathematics. CO2 concentration in the world is 420PPM which is 0.042% of the total atmosphere. Of that 0.042% of total atmosphere, man's contribution is 0.03% of the 420PPM which calculates to 0.126 PPM or 1.26 parts per 10 million of total atmosphere. Please explain why you cannot see this. I suggest that your bias has blinded you to reality and sensible argument. Using Dr. Google is not proof and trying to twist facts to suit your agenda has no credibility. I am still waiting.

 

[Rob44]

Now you have removed all doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. The chart you posted is correct 0.03% = 300PPM. But you have simply taken that at face value and made the assumption that CO2 concentrations at 420PPM which is 0.042% of total atmosphere and man has contributed 0.03% of total atmosphere which is 300PPM . If that were correct, you would be right. But you have failed to apply the necessary mathematics. CO2 concentration in the world is 420PPM which is 0.042% of the total atmosphere. Of that 0.042% of total atmosphere, man's contribution is 0.03% of the 420PPM which equates to 0.0003% of total atmosphere. Please explain why you cannot see this. I suggest that your bias has blinded you to reality and sensible argument. Using Dr. Google is not proof and trying to twist facts to suit your agenda has no credibility. I am still waiting.

Aha. you need to explain yourself more clearly: 0.03 of 0.04% is what you are talking about.

it doesn't change the fact that global CO2 in the pre-industrial period was of the order of 270ppm (0.027%) whereas some 200 yeas later it has risen to 420-425ppm which is an increase of 150ppm, which in terms of global temperature is indeed significant. There is also a graph that has been published that shows that the more CO2 in the air, the less global warming occurs. However that graph is what may be described simply as an upside-down exponential curve and if examined carefully we haven't quite reached the inflection point where power ofCO2's increasing contribution to Anthropogenic global Heating begins to lessen, unfortunately.

The top graph I present is incontrovertible; global population has increased from about 300 billion in 1945 to 8.5 billion now (80 years) and the measured CO2 has increased in lockstep, exponentially. As for the energy use graph, most of which produces CO2, (coal, oil and gas) has increased in lockstep with those two other exponential curves. If you don't believe those measurable figures, do the measurements yourself.

In regard to the point where those graphs show the beginning of rapid increases in anthropogenic global CO2 production and rate of population increase begin steepening, that is around 1945, a year after the first production of antibiotics and couple of years before the UN began systematic foreign aid programmes to try to end poverty and consequent illnesses world wide . You will also notice that the rapid increase in burning natural gas began around 1974-76, about the time the PR Chinese cultural revolution came to an end, and the Chinese began increasingly to obtain the material lifestyle and comforts of our western world; and the UK shifted to burning North Sea gas in domestic gas stoves, not that that probably made much difference. You will also note that hydropower and nuclear make f***-all contribution to the world's energy supply when compared with natural gas, oil and coal. And that means we are on a hiding to nowhere when it comes to reducing Anthropogenic Global Heating in the projected time available to do so.

Anyway, wait and see. You have already said that this information is spurious.

 

[I'm Mal]

Aha. you need to explain yourself more clearly: 0.03 of 0.04% is what you are talking about.

it doesn't change the fact that global CO2 in the pre-industrial period was of the order of 270ppm (0.027%) whereas some 200 yeas later it has risen to 420-425ppm which is an increase of 150ppm, which in terms of global temperature is indeed significant. There is also a graph that has been published that shows that the more CO2 in the air, the less global warming occurs. However that graph is what may be described simply as an upside-down exponential curve and if examined carefully we haven't quite reached the inflection point where power ofCO2's increasing contribution to Anthropogenic global Heating begins to lessen, unfortunately.

The top graph I present is incontrovertible; global population has increased from about 300 billion in 1945 to 8.5 billion now (80 years) and the measured CO2 has increased in lockstep, exponentially. As for the energy use graph, most of which produces CO2, (coal, oil and gas) has increased in lockstep with those two other exponential curves. If you don't believe those measurable figures, do the measurements yourself.

In regard to the point where those graphs show the beginning of rapid increases in anthropogenic global CO2 production and rate of population increase begin steepening, that is around 1945, a year after the first production of antibiotics and couple of years before the UN began systematic foreign aid programmes to try to end poverty and consequent illnesses world wide . You will also notice that the rapid increase in burning natural gas began around 1974-76, about the time the PR Chinese cultural revolution came to an end, and the Chinese began increasingly to obtain the material lifestyle and comforts of our western world; and the UK shifted to burning North Sea gas in domestic gas stoves, not that that probably made much difference. You will also note that hydropower and nuclear make f***-all contribution to the world's energy supply when compared with natural gas, oil and coal. And that means we are on a hiding to nowhere when it comes to reducing Anthropogenic Global Heating in the projected time available to do so.

Anyway, wait and see. You have already said that this information is spurious.

You make me laugh. It is not I who has need to explain myself more clearly. It is you who needs to read properly and pay attention when facts are presented to you. Three times I told you the exact same thing but you were clearly pre-occupied with your own self indulgence. I am very confident that this is not the first time you have been rebuked for that. It is very convenient and commonplace for climate warriors like yourself to quote events and align them with changes in weather patterns. It is also very common for climate warriors to cherry pick timelines and concentrate on post industrial revolution or post war scenarios simply because it is easy manipulate data to support your agenda. It is clear that you have a problem with population but that has nothing to do with climate or CO2. I am convinced that if you had your way, depopulation would be occurring which is akin to what hitler wanted to achieve. CO2 levels have historically followed temperature rises for millennia not vice versa. CO2 levels have been in the order of 1500PPM and we are still here. You will note that global maximum temperatures have not varied as much as global minimum temperatures have, resulting in increased average temperatures again, taking long term samples rather than just the last 100 years. There is much crap posted on the internet that has no basis in fact. Consensus is not scientific proof or validation. The science is far from settled and never will be settled. The climate warrior brigade censors any disagreement with AGW and many scientists and engineers have been defunded, discredited and fired in this cancel culture regime that is AGW. BTW I am an engineer.