Thread by @Tom_Swann

New gas subsidies today announced alongside the interim 'National Gas Infrastructure Plan' - a plan for more, far bigger subsidies.

Modelling from the same people who brought you the COVID Commission recommendations for massive gas subsidies.

Thread
energy.gov.au/sites/default/…

'National Gas Infrastructure Plan':

🏭No mention of emissions, climate change.
🏭No mention of industrial electrification.
🏭"Solutions" all assume more gas.
🏭Minor residential demand reduction in only one scenario.
🏭Rejects AEMO's 'baseline' for apparently no reason.

Remember, Angus Taylor didn't like what AEMO was saying about gas. That's why he commissioned this report.

AEMO ISP says lowest cost power means a lot less gas and a lot more renewables.

Handy summary of some of the major gas subsidies already announced and more planned.

This doesn't include major $ for CCS and hydrogen, much of which will support fossil gas.

Report says there's a need for infrastructure enabling flexible gas supply and looks a bit at gas storage. Reasonable. No justification for government subsidies, or for assuming gas power stays at current levels.

Report makes explicit that most of the 'shortfall' it is talking about is due to LNG exports.

Report is full of references to the Santos Narrabri project - 662 mentions! - and the pipelines that Santos asked the government to subsidise.

But full treatment delayed until later in 2021 - presumably accompanied by large subsidies.

NB Hunter Gas Pipeline would go from the Santos Narrabri csg field to Kurri Kurri, where govt owned & funded Snowy Hydro has been directed to look at building a gas power station, which would become customer for Narrabri. Chair of Snowy Hydro is former CEO of Santos.

As @cpi_aus has pointed out, every project here - Narrabri, HGP, Kurri Kurri - is linked to people or companies that have made large donations to the Liberal Party.

publicintegrity.org.au/wp-content/upl…

Oh look - a mention of 'carbon dioxide' - here as a contaminant of the resource, removing which will increase the cost of supply.

Also, nice bit of Andrew Liveris style jobs data abuse there. Says 900,000+ workers in Australian manufacturing, but neglects to point out only ~10,000 using gas as a feedstock.

Most workers in Australian manufacturing use little or no gas. Much of that gas consumption is readily electrified, and green hydrogen is coming for the rest.

See report for @TheAusInstitute 'On the Make' australiainstitute.org.au/report/on-the-…

Similarly, rhetoric about 'positive economic benefits' and 'local jobs' from gas exploration and production. Amongst the most jobs poor industry there is - better off subsidising just about anything else.

Report claims there will be a gas shortfall as LNG exports /increase/. Subsidies to gas supply and infrastructure ultimately to prop up the LNG terminals.

Report warns of shortfalls while saying LNG exports actually /increase/. Subsidies for LNG exports?

Report assumes Qld LNG producers can meet their own contracts - what about spot market exports? ACCC report projected increased spot exports more than claimed domestic shortfall.

Expanded domestic production - including Narrabri, mind - "found to be ineffective because they are unable to address projected annual shortfalls where GPG demand increases or remains in line with three year historical averages from 2018-2020."

A "‘domestic plus import terminal’ solution was found to be the only effective solution as it can eliminate both annual and daily shortfalls, and provide the critical additional flexibility to meet GPG demand needs."

These sound like important and alarming conclusions, but they are entirely driven by the assumptions, which are just asserted, barely argued for and not at all justified in the report.

Report assumes, does not demonstrate, we need more gas in the power sector.

Assumes, does not demonstrate, we cannot rapidly reduce residential consumption.

And so assumes, does not demonstrate, we need new gas basins.

After Taylor pressured AEMO to pursue this gas agenda, AEMO put it into their next power system plan, but then had to take it out because it got so thoroughly criticised by the market participants: reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-abandons-…

Report assumes 'northern molecules' from Qld are supplied south in all scenarios. Analyst at Rystad (where govt got their production data from) thinks imports could end up cheaper than sending northern gas south.

Taylor's gas 'plan' not only comes to different conclusions from AEMO, but is completely opaque, unlike AEMO which sets out input costs and other assumptions far more clearly. I am sure these things are not related.