With the PM in China this week and the environment minister presumably still getting over his trip to Paris for the UNESCO meeting, it's been a relatively quiet week in the energy sector.

Yes, there's been news of developments being given the greenlight (Buru gets the go-ahead to restart Ungani oil field), of deals being struck (Conrad signs landmark domestic GSA for Mako gas field) and of course news of the customary challenge to development hitting the courts (Doctors' environment group challenges NOPSEMA's acceptance of Woodside's Scarborough plans), but there's not been one issue dominating the agenda this week.

However, there was one article this week which showed the intense rivalry and competing priorities which exist within the nation's energy industry - which is ultimately a relatively small (but powerful) village.

Regular readers of ENB will be aware of the east coast energy crisis. As the most populous area of Australia, the region's energy demands are the highest and as coal fired power stations are set for closure in the near future, the region's adoption and development of renewable energy projects to fill the void has been slow to materialise.

One of the suggestions of how this crisis can be eased is to import LNG from other parts of the country. Yes, it might sound like trying to sell ice to Eskimos but the notion of importing LNG through purpose-built terminals is a serious consideration.

The likes of Squadron Energy and Viva Energy – who have respectively been developing their Port Kembla and Geelong import terminal plans for years – are massively behind the idea, understandably.

Squadron says their facility will have the capacity to supply 500TJ a day - enough to meet nearly all of NSW's gas needs on a peak day. Likwise Viva says Geelong will "unlock a pathway to bring the most cost-effective liquefied natural gas from Australian gas fields in northern Australia or from the global market."

These two firms – particularly the former – have been regularly locking horns with the APA Group – the self-proclaimed "largest company you've never heard of" – which, among other things, is one of the country's biggest players in the piping of gas all over the east of Australia.

Not surprisingly, APA isn't too keen on vital gas supplies being delivered by boat, preferring to see it pushed through its own pipes to wherever it's needed, with the ensuing fees and charges filling their coffers very nicely, thank you very much.

And the two sides of this import vs pipe argument do not hold back on the vitriol.

This week it emerged that in its submission to the Australian Energy Market Operator's (AEMO)  2026 Integrated System Plan, the APA Group warned that floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) come with hidden costs that could drive up power bills and distort the country's energy investment decisions.

"Estimates of charter fees range from US$80,000 to US$120,000 per day—more than AU$55 million per annum—and are subject to extreme volatility due to the small global fleet," said the APA.

Then getting specific, the APA's executive Darren Rogers honed in on the Victorian government's support for Viva Energy's Geelong plan, claiming it could displace lower-cost domestic supply from Iona gas storage without necessary upgrades to the South West Pipeline.

"That could mean higher-cost, higher-emissions imported LNG is prioritised over Australian gas," warned Rogers.

But Viva weren't taking this lying down and hit back saying their Geelong terminal would "enhance transparency and promote competition by introducing global LNG price indices to the east coast market.

"By accessing global markets, this project could significantly reduce costs for consumers and provide a ceiling on domestic gas prices," a Viva spokesperson said.

Likewise, Squadron took aim, saying: "It's not surprising APA continues its campaign against LNG terminals when they're years away from delivering any solution to the looming gas shortage," a handbag-holding spokesperson said.

"Our terminal is already built. It's a fraction of the cost, offering a faster, more flexible and lower-risk solution that's ready to go.

"LNG terminals are cost-competitive—if not cheaper—than new pipelines, which take years and billions of dollars to build, with no guarantee they'll be ready this decade," they added.

This exchange is just one of many witnessed over recent months and is likely a precursor of many more to come.

Energy security is a vital issue for us all, ideally provided at the lowest cost.

But when the profit margins and ROI of the interested parties become involved, temperatures certainly start to rise.

 

Yours, 

Russell Yeo