Woodside's joint venture to save capital costs | The Australian:
JPMorgan said FLNG would be far more profitable for the partners, but noted it could cost the federal government about $7bn in foregone taxes and involved "tricky but not necessarily fatal" political obstacles.
The offshore option was technically feasible and could "avoid the majority of environmental and social opposition to the Browse development", according to JPMorgan oil and gas analyst Ben Wilson.
Photo Damian Kelly
ACTION OF THE DAY
A MAJOR national bank has been forced to remove more than 100 misleading out of order signs from its ATMs after being targeted by anti-coal activists.
A MAJOR national bank has been forced to remove more than 100 misleading out of order signs from its ATMs after being targeted by anti-coal activists.
A score of ANZ Banking Group machines sprawled across six capital cities were plastered with "out of order" signs on Sunday after campaigners launched their latest bid to draw attention to the bank's funding of the coal industry.
Posts
Doing business at the worlds riskiest address.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gaza-s-offshore-gas-fields/11680
Who Owns the Gas Fields
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.
..
Who Owns the Gas Fields
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.
..
Gaza and Energy Geopolitics
The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.
What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?
What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?
A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?
The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?
The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?
If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).
.....................
The Australian gov and Woodside have bought into this?
More insanity.
Well it's Monday morning and seems there is lots going on.
ReplyDeleteIndigenous
New action to stop $35bn gas hub
by: Graham Lloyd
From:The Australian
November 19, 201212:00AM
FRESH legal action has been launched to stop Woodside's $35 billion gas hub project at James Price Point, near Broome, which has divided Aboriginal and community groups in Western Australia's far north.
The WA Supreme Court has been asked to overturn the state government's second attempt at compulsory acquisition of the site and rule the $1.5bn compensation deal negotiated with the Kimberley Land Council invalid.
....................
Native title boss didn't reveal ties with FMG
by: Paul Cleary
From:The Australian
November 19, 201212:00AM
THE National Native Title Tribunal has admitted a senior executive failed to declare her ownership of a consulting firm that facilitated access to Aboriginal land by mining companies.
Nor did the NNTT's former West Australian state manager, Lillian Maher, declare her relationship with two employees of Fortescue Metals Group, which benefited from tribunal decisions.
.........................
INCREASING cost blowouts at Australia's major resources projects could dent future investment in the once booming sector, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has warned, blaming government and industry for not better managing escalating costs.
Mr Ferguson said yesterday that continual cost blowouts made it difficult to attract further investment.
....................
AUSTRALIA'S coal seam gas industry could face future carbon tax liabilities of up to $4 billion a year if ''fugitive'' emissions of methane from unconventional gas production turn out to be substantially higher than expected.
Three huge coal seam gas-to-LNG projects worth $60 billion are under construction in Queensland by BG Group, Origin Energy and Santos. Both BG and Santos have had multibillion-dollar cost blowouts this year. Investors are nervous about costs, execution and rates of return on these LNG projects.
On Sunday, federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson told the ABC that news last week of a potential $20 billion cost blowout at Chevron's Gorgon project in Western Australia was ''not good in terms of attracting further investment''.
The federal government calculates carbon tax liability for conventional and unconventional gas alike, using estimates that just 0.12 per cent of the produced gas escapes to the atmosphere.
Advertisement
But recent studies of unconventional gasfields in the US and Australia suggest emissions could be 4 per cent or higher.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has doubled its own estimate of fugitive emissions to 2.4 per cent and Australia's Department of Climate Change is reviewing its methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from coal seam gas operations, for potential use in the 2013 National Greenhouse Accounts.
Think tank Beyond Zero Emissions has calculated that a typical coal seam gas well producing a terajoule a day of methane, and producing 1 per cent fugitive emissions, would incur a carbon tax liability of $31,700 a year at the current rate of $23 a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.
A well that leaked 4 per cent would be liable for tax of $126,800 a year.
There are about 3500 producing coal seam gas wells in Queensland and New South Wales at present and these figures would translate into an annual carbon tax liability of between $111 million (1 per cent fugitives) and $444 million (4 per cent). If 30,000 wells are developed as is planned, the annual carbon tax liability would blow out to between $951 million (1 per cent fugitives) and $3.8 billion (4 per cent fugitives).
Beyond Zero executive director Matthew Wright said the calculations showed ''massive unaccounted-for liabilities'' and called for an independent study of fugitive emissions from coal seam gas.
..
.... a single gas well could emit enough fugitive methane to incur a $10 million annual carbon tax liability.
http://yindjibarndi.org.au/yindjibarndi/?p=2830#.UKjuT7ib_mo.facebook
ReplyDeleteNative title boss didn’t reveal ties with FMG
Article by Paul Cleary
November 19, 2012 12:00AM
From: The Australian
THE National Native Title Tribunal has admitted a senior executive failed to declare her ownership of a consulting firm that facilitated access to Aboriginal land by mining companies.
Nor did the NNTT’s former West Australian state manager, Lillian Maher, declare her relationship with two employees of Fortescue Metals Group, which benefited from tribunal decisions.
It is alleged Ms Maher regularly briefed her partner, Michael Gallagher, about proceedings at the tribunal that affected FMG, according to a lawyer who worked with Mr Gallagher.
At about the same time, Ms Maher’s firm MGA Consulting produced a heritage report that dismissed concerns raised by other consultants about potential destruction of indigenous sites.
Ms Maher worked for the NNTT from 1994 until August this year, when she left as a result of a “restructure”.
Mr Gallagher worked for Fortescue Metals for several years until late 2010, before being appointed as a consultant to native title group Wirlu-murra Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, heavily funded by FMG.
Ms Maher’s daughter Lisa also works for FMG.
...................
You have got to be kidding me,no one knew of this?What else is going on?
A nervous looking Ferguson,some may say even humbled,talking to Alan Kohler yesterday.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3635241.htm
ALAN KOHLER, PRESENTER: Not so long ago, the massive gas projects on the east and west coasts were considered the rock solid guarantee of Australia's prosperity for decades to come. Hundreds of billions of dollars are due to be spent on the projects, but the economics of them are starting to look a bit shakier with costs blowing out and the news that the USA could become an aggressive competitor in the once-captive Asian market.
I spoke to Resources Minister Martin Ferguson about the rapidly changing dynamics of the gas-fired economy.
Well Martin Ferguson, project development costs particularly in LNG seem to be blowing out. The latest speculation is around Gorgon - apparently the costs going up by 50 per cent. But is this sort of thing, do you think, putting projects at risk?
MARTIN FERGUSON, RESOURCES & ENERGY MINISTER: Look, I think we're fortunate that the projects are pretty advanced, there's no turning back. But having said that, I think all of us have gotta be conscious that this is not good terms of attracting further investment. There is speculation about Gorgon, but, you know, we also had the cost issues of the British Gas Group earlier this year at Gladstone. There's no doubt there's some cost overruns. All of us have to be conscious about better managing these projects so as to continue the pipeline of investment beyond this $170 billion.
...
ALAN KOHLER: And there's in fact $230 billion worth of planned projects. Do you think that we can count on all of that happening?
MARTIN FERGUSON: Look, we got $270 billion committed....... Projects such as browse, Scarborough and onshore too, terrific opportunities, but if we don't have regard for cost and then we’ll be less attractive. But at the moment I'm pleased to say there’s still more interest in places such as Japan and China, Korea, etc., but they are appropriately monitoring our project costs, delivery and timelines, etc, and I think it's bet that we're forewarned by what's happening at the moment rather than taking it for granted that these projects will just willy nilly come our way.
.....................
Wrong side of the cost curve
ALAN KOHLER: Now I've got a chart here of the mining costs .......
Now Stephen, what effect do you think this is having on projects and in particular thinking about coal as well ‘cause Martin Ferguson pointed out the big drop in coal prices that's occurred?
STEPHEN BARTHOLOMEUSZ: It's having a profound effect. If you think about that period a year and a half ago where prices were roaring along, no‑one cared too much about costs and there were supply constraints - labour and services and capital. So there were – there was extreme inflation in costs, but no‑one cared ‘cause the price was more than compensating you for that. All of a sudden we get to around about September last year and the prices started dropping and then through this year they've dropped precipitously. So, commodity prices generally down between 40 and 50 per cent. Thermal coal’s been smashed because it's not just the slowdown in China's demand. You've got changes to the market with the US coal coming into our market. So you’d say there's a ceiling on that. And thermal coal used to be – our thermal coal used to be really cost competitive against the rest of the world. Two‑thirds of the industry used to be in the bottom half of the cost curve. Today two‑thirds of it’s – of the industry has a cost advantage of more than 50 per cent against the average producer elsewhere. So you’d say thermal coal's future is really clouded. Most thermal coal mines in Australia at the moment would be borderline break-even at best.
Strange how Woodside and Gazprom both wound up in denial over shalegas/unconventional gas.Now they are scrambling to reach the new reality.The world of energy,and the geopolitical advantage huge energy resources bring,has all been changed in a very short time.(Or what happens when you take your eye off the ball).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/gazprom-chill-shale-gas-revolution
Gazprom feels the chill as its dominance is weakened
Russia's state gas monopoly may no longer be able to dictate long-term pricing contracts and shut supply valves
A vast northern energy project frozen, billions of dollars in lost profit, legal disputes and investigations – the creeping shale gas revolution has left Gazprom, Russia's state gas monopoly, reeling.
Long used to being the big boy on the block, Gazprom has been confronted with a future where it may no longer be able to dictate long-term pricing contracts, shut supply valves on a whim and hold much of Europe in its grip because of its position as dominant player.
For years, officials at Gazprom refused to discuss shale gas at length. Alexander Medvedev, deputy head of the monopoly, once famously called it a "bubble". Alexey Miller, its CEO, said the alternative energy source would remain something of a luxurious side dish. "If you like foie gras, that doesn't mean you no longer need a regular steak," he told a gathering of European businessmen in Cannes in 2010.
Now, with the US poised to overtake both Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's largest oil producer by 2035 because of shale, it looks like Russian officials may be grudgingly accepting the new reality.
Vladimir Putin, the powerful president who has made stretching the Kremlin's grip over the country's energy sector a governing priority, has taken the lead. "Politicians, experts and businessmen are talking about the shale revolution," he said last month to mark the launch of Bovanenkovo, a new Arctic gas field. "We must take into account current developments and have a clear view of how the situation will develop not only in the next two to three years, but through the next decade."
He commanded a new energy strategy to be drawn up by the end of November.
"When the whole boom started, Gazprom was in denial," said Elena Herold, a Russia analyst at PFC Energy, a Washington-based energy consultancy. Putin's statements marked a shift, she said. Russia realises it will have to react – though no one yet knows how.
The US shale gas boom has already had major effects on Russia, though its responses have remained ad hoc. There is a widespread understanding that Gazprom's decision to pull the plug on Shtokman, a huge Arctic gas field that it had long feted as Russia's flagship foray into a new and difficult production region, was prompted by increasing US reliance on shale.
Gazprom has also been forced to concede – on a case by case basis – that its prices to customers in Europe have been too high as the continent has taken in liquified natural gas once destined for the US, sold at spot prices well below those locked into Gazprom's long-term contracts, where prices are indexed to oil. Russia supplies around a quarter of Europe's gas.
cont...
ReplyDeleteThe European commission has also launched an anti-trust investigation into whether Gazprom has been imposing unfair prices on its European customers by linking its prices to oil, and whether it has been hindering the free flow of gas across the EU. Russia's dependability as a gas supplier was called into question after it shut the valves to Ukraine, the country through which most of its gas reaches Europe, over pricing disputes largely seen as punishment of the ex-Soviet country's turn westward. It was accused of using energy as a direct foreign policy tool. The cuts, in 2006 and 2009, came in the dead of winter, and countries across Europe froze.
Ukraine said this week that it planned to sign production sharing agreements with Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell by early December to develop its own shale gas. For now, the tide in Russia has yet to turn. State run media and Gazprom talk up the environmental dangers of fracking, an odd phenomenon in a country that usually keeps ecological concerns at the bottom of its agenda. Putin's command that Gazprom wake up to shale gas will likely change things, analysts said. "No one in Russia's energy industry can afford to ignore the president's stark comments," said Herold.