5 ms·

The only reason that natural gas prices in Australia have gone up in the past 10 years is that gas producers in the eastern states were able to start exporting

The only reason that natural gas prices in Australia have gone up in the past 10 years is that gas producers in the eastern states were able to start exporting gas as LNG. As of 2023, Australia is the world's second largest LNG exporter (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-export-capacity-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-expor...) after the US (take that Russia!) and ahead of Qatar. Great for the gas exporting cartel but not so great for ordinary Australians in eastern states who now pay the same for gas as people in Tokyo. (And Aussies wonder why manufacturers keep leaving...) Banning domestic gas usage for new homes (which the fools running Victoria, the state I live in, have done) will do nothing for emissions but will mean that the gas cartel can make even more money exporting LNG to Asia. Bravo! The exception is Western Australia which is also a massive LNG exporter but has stricter domestic reservation requirements than the eastern states. All of the above has been extensively documented at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/ https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/ (source: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.macrobusiness.com.au%2F+gas+cartel https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww....).

paranoidrobot 3y ago
> will do nothing for emissions How can that be? Direct consumption emissions are eliminated. Those with solar (a growing percentage) reduce their indirect emissions from grid non-renewable generators. And there is a growing percentage of green generation on the grid.
- jbarham 3y ago
  >> will do nothing for emissions > How can that be? Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports. Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating. > Direct consumption emissions are eliminated. Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia (after it's been liquified and then turned back into gas) is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity...
  - rmm 3y ago
    This. Have friends in this industry. The biggest pushers of no domestic gas are the producers and finance guys. They make a lot more money on exports.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    Is the correct strategy to wait to regulate gas usage until every country on earth does the same? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Someone always has to be last.
    - looofooo0 3y ago
      It is stupid, with less Gas available on the LNG Market other LNG Producers will increase production or they will use other Energy sources such as coal.
      - paranoidrobot 3y ago
        It's banning the installation of NEW LNG appliances in homes in Victoria. It doesn't impact commercial use of LNG, or the extraction or export of LNG.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      If you want to help the environment, you regulate both gas usage and exports. The goal is to keep gas in the ground, where it belongs, not to move it to other countries.
      - hardolaf 3y ago
        Except gas exports are largely being used to retire brown coal burning which is even worse for the environment than LNG. This isn't an all-or-nothing deal even with exports. The richer countries should take on the costs of better efficiency first and we can trickle those technologies down to other nations as they become cheaper than LNG and coal.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
elihu 3y ago
What you seem to be saying is that Australians had gas that was artificially cheap because it wasn't being bought and sold at international market rates, and once that started happening and the market was no longer distorted by trade limitations, the fair market price was not longer attractive to Australian customers. (Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)
- leg100 3y ago
  It wasn't "artifically" cheap nor was the market "distorted". It was merely the physical reality prior to the innovation of LNG. It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.
  - Tinyyy 3y ago
    There was an inefficient allocation of resources that was disrupted by technology.
    - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
      [dead]
    - caminante 3y ago
      How was it "inefficient"? A tech shock doesn't mean the old status quo was inefficient. E.g., conventional mail wasn't inefficient prior to email
      - ctime 3y ago
        Mail (physical means of communicating in writing and print) and email (connecting two people with digital signal) are similar but not a great comparison when comparing consumption of natural gas. Technology literally created additional markets for the same material, by modifying it so it could be transported more efficiently over long distances. I think you could say the new methods of natural gas production and storage are more efficient just as easily as saying the old methods were simply inefficient (it would have been possible to pipeline gas from AU to markets across the ocean, but it didn’t make economic sense because it would have been terribly costly and thus an inefficient use of resources)
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Interesting. Of course transporting gas across the Australian continent and selling it cheaply is a lot less lucrative than selling it abroad in lng form. So, I can see why they would focus on exports rather than a relatively small domestic market that is on the other side of the continent. Anyway, Australia has no excuse for not using solar energy. Which is exactly what they are doing over there despite conservative governments trying to slow that down for the last decade or so. I doesn't need to depend on fossil fuels.

paranoidrobot 3y ago

> will do nothing for emissions How can that be? Direct consumption emissions are eliminated. Those with solar (a growing percentage) reduce their indirect emissions from grid non-renewable generators. And there is a growing percentage of green generation on the grid.

jbarham 3y ago
>> will do nothing for emissions > How can that be? Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports. Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating. > Direct consumption emissions are eliminated. Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia (after it's been liquified and then turned back into gas) is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Victoria#Electricity...
- rmm 3y ago
  This. Have friends in this industry. The biggest pushers of no domestic gas are the producers and finance guys. They make a lot more money on exports.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Is the correct strategy to wait to regulate gas usage until every country on earth does the same? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Someone always has to be last.
  - looofooo0 3y ago
    It is stupid, with less Gas available on the LNG Market other LNG Producers will increase production or they will use other Energy sources such as coal.
    - paranoidrobot 3y ago
      It's banning the installation of NEW LNG appliances in homes in Victoria. It doesn't impact commercial use of LNG, or the extraction or export of LNG.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    If you want to help the environment, you regulate both gas usage and exports. The goal is to keep gas in the ground, where it belongs, not to move it to other countries.
    - hardolaf 3y ago
      Except gas exports are largely being used to retire brown coal burning which is even worse for the environment than LNG. This isn't an all-or-nothing deal even with exports. The richer countries should take on the costs of better efficiency first and we can trickle those technologies down to other nations as they become cheaper than LNG and coal.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago

elihu 3y ago

What you seem to be saying is that Australians had gas that was artificially cheap because it wasn't being bought and sold at international market rates, and once that started happening and the market was no longer distorted by trade limitations, the fair market price was not longer attractive to Australian customers. (Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)

leg100 3y ago
It wasn't "artifically" cheap nor was the market "distorted". It was merely the physical reality prior to the innovation of LNG. It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.
- Tinyyy 3y ago
  There was an inefficient allocation of resources that was disrupted by technology.
  - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
    [dead]
  - caminante 3y ago
    How was it "inefficient"? A tech shock doesn't mean the old status quo was inefficient. E.g., conventional mail wasn't inefficient prior to email
    - ctime 3y ago
      Mail (physical means of communicating in writing and print) and email (connecting two people with digital signal) are similar but not a great comparison when comparing consumption of natural gas. Technology literally created additional markets for the same material, by modifying it so it could be transported more efficiently over long distances. I think you could say the new methods of natural gas production and storage are more efficient just as easily as saying the old methods were simply inefficient (it would have been possible to pipeline gas from AU to markets across the ocean, but it didn’t make economic sense because it would have been terribly costly and thus an inefficient use of resources)

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Interesting. Of course transporting gas across the Australian continent and selling it cheaply is a lot less lucrative than selling it abroad in lng form. So, I can see why they would focus on exports rather than a relatively small domestic market that is on the other side of the continent. Anyway, Australia has no excuse for not using solar energy. Which is exactly what they are doing over there despite conservative governments trying to slow that down for the last decade or so. I doesn't need to depend on fossil fuels.