smh.com.au
Shell Rejects Coalition's Gas Export Curb Plan
Shell warns that the Coalition's plan to curb Queensland LNG exports to boost domestic gas supplies would fail to increase supply, worsen gas shortfalls in NSW and Victoria, and deter investment in new gas projects, despite the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's claim it would lower gas prices.
- How would the Coalition's proposed gas export curbs impact investment in new Australian gas projects and the overall supply of gas to the east coast?
- Shell Australia chair Cecile Wake warned that the Coalition's plan to curb gas exports would not increase gas supply but redistribute it, potentially worsening shortfalls in NSW and Victoria by disrupting the market and hindering investment in new projects. The plan aims to reserve 50-100 petajoules of uncontracted gas annually, enough for an additional 20 percent of eastern seaboard demand. This intervention comes as ageing Bass Strait gas fields deplete, leading to concerns about future shortfalls.
- What are the potential challenges in transporting additional reserved gas from Queensland to southern states, and how might these challenges affect the effectiveness of the Coalition's plan?
- The Coalition's proposed gas reservation plan faces criticism for its potential to reduce investment in new gas projects and its lack of a clear mechanism for transporting additional gas from Queensland to southern states. Shell's QCLNG and Origin Energy's APLNG would be forced to reserve more uncontracted gas, impacting their export contracts. The plan's projected price reduction from \$14 to \$10 per gigajoule is challenged by rising production costs and limited pipeline capacity.
- What are the long-term implications of the Coalition's plan for the Australian gas market, including its effects on energy prices, investment decisions, and the overall energy security of the country?
- The long-term consequences of the Coalition's gas reservation plan could include decreased gas production due to reduced investment, exacerbating existing supply issues and potentially leading to higher prices in the future. The plan's short-term effects might offer temporary relief but are unsustainable. Limited pipeline infrastructure and the inflexible nature of coal seam gas production hinder its effectiveness. The lack of detailed implementation plans raises concerns about feasibility and long-term sustainability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article leans towards skepticism of the Coalition's plan. The headline highlights Shell's warning, positioning it as the central argument against the proposal. The inclusion of expert opinions critical of the plan further reinforces this perspective. The article also emphasizes the challenges of the plan rather than its potential benefits.
Language Bias
The article uses language that subtly casts doubt on the Coalition's proposal. Phrases such as "stunt investment," "failing to boost supplies," and "drew immediate scrutiny" are examples of loaded language that could influence the reader's perception. More neutral phrasing could include: 'may hinder investment,' 'may not significantly increase supplies,' and 'received immediate attention from experts.'
Bias by Omission
The analysis lacks perspectives from smaller gas producers or consumers directly impacted by potential export restrictions. The article focuses heavily on Shell's perspective and the views of energy analysts, potentially omitting the viewpoints of other stakeholders.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either export restrictions or gas shortages. It overlooks the potential for other solutions, such as investing in new infrastructure or exploring alternative energy sources.
Sustainable Development Goals
The proposed export curbs on liquefied gas could hinder new project investments, potentially worsening gas shortfalls and increasing energy prices. This negatively impacts efforts to ensure access to affordable and clean energy.