This is the usual dig it up, cut it down, burn it etc way of doing business in Australia.
We are told that there will be 6000 jobs in this project. I used to work on Barrow loading tankers and the workforce was a total of about 9 men. So it is the usual spin that jobs are the main reason for this project.
It is also worth noting that when we have run out of our own oil and cannot afford to import more, poking handfuls US dollars into a cars fuel tank will not move it one inch.
Converting the car to gas and using some of the gas from the NW shelf IF THERE IS ANY LEFT will make it go.

Good article. You also have to wonder at the logic of selling off these natural resources when we could, as sarnian said, be converting cars to gas and over time reduce our dependency on oil.

You have to wonder sometimes what the ultimate agenda is and if there are other factors at play.

More business as usual from the corporate lackeys in the ALP. What is most depressing is that we have to pay for it. Subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are in the multi-billions - sometimes (see, eg, the coal industry in Qld 2008) exceeding the amount we receive in royalties. Perhaps it's time for a taxpayer revolt. I don't want my taxes paying for infrastructure, subsidising destruction, giving tax breaks to fuel, cars, mines etc. I don't want my taxes exacerbating climate change, killing species (by the way there are alternative sites on the mainland) or supporting economic systems that are untenable and unsustainable.

The Greens oppose Gorgon!

Hardly a surprise, I have yet to see them support anything.

Well said Pelican & Next

I believe the suggestion to run cars on what Australia has massive quantities of (while transitioning to sustainable alternatives) makes far more sense than selling off our resources. Shame we have to mine the stuff at all, but if we do, selling it to the Chinese or any other countries is a waste in consideration of long term prospects. Of course for the short-term, there is money to be made, could not a substantial percentage be earmarked for alternative energy projects?

One does have to wonder at the background players in all this.

Ok, to add a little bit of reality to all the dreaming :)

Firstly, we only know that we have that gas, because companies
spent hundreds of millions of $ drilling for it. The Govt
would have pocketed the money, for their right to even drill!

Secondly, the Govt has threatened any company which sits
on discovered gas with loss of its claim, if it is not developed.
The Govt wants investment, as the Govt wants jobs, as the Govt
wants to win the next election. 45 billion$ spent is alot of
investment.

To spend that kind of money means loans from banks and they don't
lend against bluesky, but against firm contracts, so that repayment
of those loans is secure. Those who sign a contract into the future,
get the gas.

The NW shelf is a long way from ES consumer gas markets, SE Asian
markets are far closer. IN the Eastern States, you have the newly
developing coal seam gas fields in abundance. They are planning to
export that gas from Gladstones in huge volumes.

If motorists want to use gas, how many of you have switched your
cars over and are prepared to commit to use gas for the next 30 years?

If you do, then you had better be quick, before all those multi
billions of $ are spent in Gladstones, to build export terminals
for Eastern States coal seam gas.