I agree with most of these sentiments. Whereas politicians are now cock-a-hoop over LNG sales I believe it will prove short sighted within a decade. While the oil exploration lobby APPEA says we have 500 years of gas reserves ABARE has a more sanguine estimate of 65 years. I think domestic gas demand will rise dramatically for two reasons. First south eastern Australia's natural gas reserves are depleting and will need to be replaced by gas from the north west. Rex Connor anticipated this 30 years ago. Whether coal seam gas can replace natgas is unproven. Second I doubt Australians will take to electric cars, a four seater with a 40km battery range might cost $40k. I think natural gas vehicles with a 300km range will prove more popular. Yet another requirement for gas will be to back up lulls in the wind and solar generation that will be required under the 20% renewable energy target by 2020. We are not even close to being on track for that target so perhaps it is just more vaporware from Rudd.

On the Barrow Island CO2 escape guarantee it could be pointed out that the nuclear power industry has been criticised for the Price-Anderson act in the US. Here the government has promised to pay the bills for any damages but it has not been put to legislation. It could be pointed out that Barrow Island will use physical separation of CO2 a much easier problem to solve than the chemical method in 'clean coal'.

The federal government should formulate a 20 year plan for natural gas use in Australia. I suggest top priority goes to ammonia based fertiliser, CNG for transport, domestic heat and peak power balancing of wind and solar. Last priority goes to LNG export.

'The Greens have been opposed the location' Wow what a surprise. They consider Barrow island not suitable. Where would they suggest? Maybe the middle of Canberra.

'It is home to 24 species that are found nowhere else in the world,'
What a surprise? I am sure they could find some species in a sewerage pond not found anywhere else in the world. I wonder if any 'sacred' sites have been uncovered yet.

'At what price Gorgon' Thankfully even Mr Garrett is sensible enough to know that the benefits will far outweigh the propaganda of the Greens.

Perhaps the author should take a look at our current account deficit,
which is as high as that of a banana republic at around 6% of GDP.

Fact is that Australia is broke and needs the money, we can't live
off more borrowings forever.

Entirely agree with your article. Without a doubt Western Australian Politicians of all/any persuation are raw material development enthusiasts with really no serious thought of the long term damage to the environment, or for that matter, of the future reasonable domestic requirements of the ordinary tax paying citizen. This development boom or bust mentality purely for political gain will most surely end in the ordinary citizen's quality of life diminished if not destroyed, his/her cost of living greatly increased, whilst the multinational exploiters are sitting back enjoying the profits
These multinational company's, in the long term, are the only people who will really profit. The rest of us, as happened in the recent mining boom, will just have to sit back and pay the cost of the boom through increased charges and taxes and material/housing shortages.
If development of these gas fields is absolutely necessary, then firstly, it must be orderly preventing undue inflation of goods and services, secondly, utilised for the betterment of the whole Australian population through universal provision of cheaper energy including vehicular transportation, then and only then, any surplus be sold to overseas markets.
Remember if this potential energy is left in the ground it certainly does not deteriorate, just increases in value. Also of equal importance, this potential energy is not owned by Australian politicians to be used at their will and whim, but is owned equally by every tax paying resident of this country.

My concern is that this another example of the policy stated by the
Chinese Premier;
"We will burn all your coal and then burn ours".
China is not running around the world tying up resources for fun.
Their politicians know what is coming and are taking steps to protect
China.
Our dopey politicians cannot even speak of the peak that dare not
speak its name. If ever there was a subject that needs to be rammed
down the politicians' throat it is peak oil.

We are going to need that gas in a big way.
As oil prices rise our balance of payments will send us completely broke..
We will not be in a position to pay pensions, hospitals and schools.
Natural Gas will give us time to make the transition to whatever
comes next.

Right on Rachel.

Also, fossil fuels are yesterday's technology. They won't pay the bills in a decade when everyone except the undead knows global warming is trashing the planet.

There's already a $6 billion photovoltaic industry in China - using Australian technology. That will grow rapidly, but we won't get the jobs and export income because our moronic politicians are captive to present interests.

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.

G'Day All
Why haven't we started building LPG cars as standard production? There is more Gas under the ground through the Pilliga Scrub(N.West NSW)than what we would use in 100 years this would alleviate our present need for the importation of the oil that we are importing at present for the petrol that the cars are using.
I am of the understanding that LPG is cleaner than petrol, although someone may be able to enlighten me on that point.
The LPG powered cars may not be as fast as the petrol driven cars but I have driven LPG powered cars & have found no problem with the power or speeds that they are capable of although they weren't the sheer power of the petrol powered cars of the race cars but who needs race car performance on the highways.
Anyway just a thought have a great life from Dave

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

Yes, indeed, let's add some reality....

Sooner or later petrol/oil is going increase in price beyond the average motorist (sooner) and then become scarce (later).

If we don't use natural gas during transition from oil dependency (for which we already have the means to convert), what do we utilise? Electric cars are fine for short trips, but Australia is a large country.

Suggestions welcome.

Fractelle, you are free to use natural gas, any day that you wish.
Its far cheaper then petrol, just bit less convenient. Have
you converted your car yet?

The Govt was paying for a large part of conversions, as soon as
the price of petrol dropped a bit, people slacked off on converting.

Its up to each individual to make their own decision.

Gas companies won't set up more gas distribution, unless consumers
demand it and yes, coal seam gas can be used, there is oodles of
in all around the Eastern coal areas.

As a matter of interest, all my vehicles are diesel and I am
surrounded by fields of canola, with a biodiesel plant in town,
owned by a mate of mine. My wheels are assured.

The thing is, people just happen to learn the hard way. The moment
oil goes up to 200$ plus, there will be much complaining and
squealing, tv full of drama and sad stories and long queues outside
the gas conversion places. We've seen it all before.

dwg & others;
LPG and Natural gas are different gases.
LPG in Australia is made from oil.
Natural gas is what comes out the gas pipe to your stove and oven.

In the US you can buy compressors that can supply the gas tank in
your car from your gas supply.
There are many buses in Sydney running on natural gas, but as far as I
know there are no service stations equipped for CNG.

I have not seen any projections on when peak gas will occur if we use
it for transportation. The last I read of projected world peak gas was
in about 15 years. The US has since then found more gas but there is
now a move for CNG for cars in the US so that will bring peak gas
much closer if it takes off.

Another problem is that there will be a large number of gas fired
power stations built in the next few years, including here in Australia.

So conversion of the car & truck fleet is a real option.
The big but is how much have we committed to export and power stations ?

Thanks for that Bazz
I have never really looked deep into that side of life I have had and still have more pressing agendas
First the abuse of a child that I thought was mine
Now my very freedom and existance.
I may have to put a little of my mind aside to indulge on the learning more of this gas situation because as I said the Pilliga Scrub has that much natural gas under it than we could use in 100years
They did have a small power station at Gunnedah which I think is still operating but that was coal fired
Anyway thanks again Bazz
All have a good life from Dave

1. 2009: A lawsuit was lodged in the DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CINCINNATI DIVISION against Chevron.

Allegations outlined in Item 38 of 98, state that "the release of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the groundwater was of such a massive size that it migrated through the local groundwater system and Great Miami River to off-site locations, including the Plaintiffs’ properties."

2. 2009: An Ecuadorean judge is expected to rule soon on whether Chevron owes up to $27 billion in damages for contamination of the Amazon rain forest.

3. A class action was filed against Chevron USA, Inc during 2004, on behalf of residents of northeast Washington, D.C., who allege that a 1989 gasoline spill violated federal environmental laws. The action seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death, personal injury, and the devaluation the homeowners' property. The USEPA has found that the resulting contamination spreads more than six city blocks into the plaintiffs' neighborhood, and affects more than 400 homes.

4. 2009: "Exxon-Mobil sentenced in Boston Harbour Spill. Corporation to pay $6 million for Criminal Violation of the Clean Water Act – spilling diesel oil into the Mystic River."

WA's Department of Conservation and Land Management: “ WA islands are increasingly being used by the petroleum and aquaculture industries and for recreation. Quarantine procedures developed for Barrow Island by West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd (now incorporated into Chevron Australia) have demonstrated that quarantine can be successful (Butler 1989). However, it has failed on at least four occasions when house mice have entered the island via food containers or in equipment. Even with the best will and efforts, quarantine can never be 100% successful and use of islands with high nature conservation values by industry should be minimised.”

Chevron et al, under the guise of WAPET, have occupied Barrow Island since the mid 60s. During 1990/91, a supposedly successful eradication programme was undertaken to rid the island of the introduced black rat (Rattus Rattus). Unfortunately, IMO, the eradication of the ecologically destructive feral, Rattus Rattus, in human form, was unsuccessful.

There was an interesting article in today's West Australian, about
car gas conversions. At one point, both State and Federal subsidies
just about paid for the cost and converters were run off their
feet with applications. (a bit like the free insulation people are
right now)

Now that the State subsidy has been chopped and the Federal subsidy
reduced by 250 $, they have had to fire staff and close down.

It makes my point that consumers are fickle creatures, many with
a vision no longer then their noses. If its just going to cost
them a few bob, they lose interest.

These will be the same people complaining about the price of
petroleum or claiming that the Govt should do something, when the
price of petrol rockets.

"We should" indeed.

If people don't get off their own little arses, they should stop
blaming the system.

Yabby, wrong gas. Liquid Petroleum Gas is not Natural Gas.
Never the twain shall mix.
I would not be surprised if the service stations are unhappy with the
idea of CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) because you could buy a compressor
and fill your tank at home if you have the gas on.
They can do this in the US.

I read on an industry web site that LPG is made from the refineries
while processing crude oil into petrol and diesel.
I am no chemist so I don't know exactly what the difference is, but
they are quite different.
Natural gas just comes out of the ground as gas.

Yabby & Others;
In another thread that discussed hydrogen I mentioned my son's
father in law who is an expert (a real expert) on these things.
Here is his comment on natural gas.

The main problem we found with CNG when I was involved with it was
that Natural Gas is, of course, not 100% Methane. In UK it is about
89% methane and when you liquify it the the longer chain hydrocarbon
molecule impurities tend to separate out, and having a higher
molecular weight are heavier than liquid methane.
Thus they sink to the bottom of the fuel tank and accumulate over
time. If you run low on fuel they tend to get sucked through into the
motor and b....r it up.

I am sure there are technical solutions to this but Natural Gas was
never very reliable for us, or anyone else, in buses.
The other problem of course is that Methane is lighter than air and
if the vehicle is stored under cover Methane can escape and form an
explosive mixture in the roof space, so you need a roof venting
mechanism of some sort. Same problem with Hydrogen I guess.
end quote

So you can see that these alternatives have numerous problems.
Perhaps when refuelling a CNG car you would need to purge the tank.
This would vent a considerable amount of methane which I believe is a
worse green house gas than CO2.

Oh dear, one catch 22 after another.