- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,933
- Reactions
- 26,769
FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?Ffs
Do you understand the difference between the north west shelf and browse
Didn't Morrison once describe SA's battery as a "big banana" ?
FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?
Now do your own research.
https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/australia/news/1090525/woodside-barnett-agree-on-browse-base
From the article:
Putting a supply base in Western Australia was one of the conditions Premier Colin Barnett put on the state renewing the portion of the retention leases covering those gas fields that are within WA waters.
The rest of the retention leases are in Commonwealth waters.
Barnett sensationally told the recent Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association conference in Perth that if the Browse joint venturers wanted the retention leases renewed they had to commit to a supply base in WA and a domestic gas allocation.
FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?
States can certainly negotiate agreements with producers for supply. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.On the same subject this is also why it is a State issue to reserve gas, they use it, the contract for gas reservation is between the supplier and the user.
As long as it was reserved, I guess it doesn't matter who did it, as long as it was done.States can certainly negotiate agreements with producers for supply. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.
Well it was great for WA to do it, but as it was not part of any national plan, those States without significant gas reserves don't get to have a say in what their needs are.As long as it was reserved, I guess it doesn't matter who did it, as long as it was done.
Way too much finger pointing and grand standing. IMO
For the record SA had the idea of reserving gas for use only within SA back in the 1980’s.However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.
Shell to build a 120MW solar farm at Wandoan, Queensland.
As the article points out:Shell have tip toed around the edges of the power industry since the early 1980's but never really got anywhere apart from selling oil and gas to power stations. This might finally change that......
Meanwhile Smurf gets on soapbox and says something about avoiding those who are burning investors' money in this sector since there's quite a few doing that as I've been on about for a while: https://www.theage.com.au/environme...iled-as-grid-links-stall-20200209-p53z3l.html
It's all possible, it can be made to work, but all this stuff isn't even slightly close to being "plug and play" and is no place for those who don't have an extremely firm grip on the technical side.
A lot of what is in the article is a repeat of the ABC article last week, but the more of these reporters that actually come to grips with the reality of problem the better, at least then the focus will be on the real issue rather than the perceived and emotional issues. IMOShell have tip toed around the edges of the power industry since the early 1980's but never really got anywhere apart from selling oil and gas to power stations. This might finally change that......
Meanwhile Smurf gets on soapbox and says something about avoiding those who are burning investors' money in this sector since there's quite a few doing that as I've been on about for a while: https://www.theage.com.au/environme...iled-as-grid-links-stall-20200209-p53z3l.html
It's all possible, it can be made to work, but all this stuff isn't even slightly close to being "plug and play" and is no place for those who don't have an extremely firm grip on the technical side.
It's very clear that there is no policy and as a result there is poor planning.A lot of what is in the article is a repeat of the ABC article last week, but the more of these reporters that actually come to grips with the reality of problem the better, at least then the focus will be on the real issue rather than the perceived and emotional issues.
You seriously trot that out!The Federal Government might at last put a lid on all the ranting and chanting.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...o-glasgow-climate-summit-20200209-p53z4b.html
From the article:
Australia will take a new long-term emissions reduction target to November's UN climate summit, as the Morrison government weighs up whether to join more than 80 countries to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Mr Taylor said on Sunday the government believed the answer was not a new tax or more bureaucracy but "practical change" driven by science and technology.
"The pathway to meaningful impacts on global emissions is through development and deployment of new technologies," Mr Taylor said.
"That is where Australia can have the biggest impact on reducing global emissions."
He confirmed the government expected to deliver a long-term emissions reduction strategy before the Glasgow summit.
When asked directly about the 2050 target, Mr Morrison said he would "never make a commitment like that if I couldn’t tell the Australian people what it would cost them”.
Mr Taylor and Mr Morrison have continued to declare Australia would "meet and beat" its 2030 Paris targets of reducing emissions by between 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels, potentially without using Kyoto carryover credits.
The government is also close to finalising its draft Technology Investment Roadmap, which it says will set a framework for investment priorities in emissions-reducing technologies over the short term (to 2022), medium term (to 2030) and long term (to 2050).
It sounds as though the Government is actually working on a plan, without the use of a napkin, which is new and novel method that might show a degree on maturity which would be a new and novel approach.lol
That should make everyone feel better, they can sit down and have a nice cup of tea now, it is all going to be fixed.
Without shooting from the hip.
They are all going to be stranded assets, so unfortunately the Government will probably either have to underwrite the building, or the running of whatever is built. I doubt the Banks will want to stump up the money, when there is so much negative sentiment against anything fossil fuel.Why use coal when you can use gas ? It's cheaper, less polluting and easier to ramp up and down according to demand.
We will need some form of baseload in case there is a long drop off in renewable supply (lots of overcast weather for example) . The government should be building gas baseload stations because the private companies don't want an asset that is going to lie idle for large amounts of time unless they can charge exhorbitant amounts when those assets are needed. Consumers should not be exposed to profiteering in times of need.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?