Usually when I come to write my regularly column first thing on a Friday morning I look back over the week's events, see what's made the pages of ENB and decide which story to pick up on.
But this week I've been inspired by a story which has been published literally within the last hour – the news that a third offshore wind project planned for the Gippsland declared zone has bitten the dust.
Confirmed to me in a statement from the project's developers AGL, Gippsland Skies will soon do what the Gippsland Dawn and the Kent Offshore Wind Project have already done and surrender their feasibility license back to the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar.
Industry sources who asked to remain anonymous say the decision's been taken by the AGL-led consortium due to a number of factors centred around the increasingly risky development landscape and the impact of changes in the US on the stresses and strains on their global portfolio.
Now to be fair to the Australian government, there's not a lot they can do about the decision emanating from the White House and so surely then, if they want encourage development on Australian soil (and seas), they need to work extra hard overcome the challenges President Trump is throwing into the mix.
It's regularly said that Australia has some of the strongest and most consistent offshore wind areas on the planet, ideal for generating power. Then, with our population centres all found on the country's coastlines the transmission of this power only needs to get from the wind farms to the shoreline.
It's surely a no-brainer.
And yet aside from the projects falling like flies in the Gippsland, there's been a distinct lack of interest in the other five declared zones.
In the Hunter zone a grand total of eight applications were received for feasibility licences, with only Novocastrian Wind Pty Ltd being offered a feasibility license. And guess what – in August they too withdrew their plans.
In the Southern Ocean zone, one feasibility licence was issued to the Spinifex Offshore Wind Farm.
In the Illawarra zone, BlueFloat Energy, the only firm expressing any desire to develop the Illawarra zone, has formally asked the government to "consider not offering any licences in the Illawarra zone until after the upcoming federal election." And no news since then.
In the Indian Ocean zone, off the coast of Western Australia, three projects have been awarded preliminary feasibility licenses, which are yet to be possibly upgraded to full licenses.
And no licenses have been offered in the Bass Strait zone off Tasmania, even though the application period closed six months ago.
So, when faced with the challenges brought about by being a global corporation which has to contend with Trump's antics, what incentives do these developers see coming from the Australian government to make them more at ease with the notion of developing down under?
Apparently, the best they can come up with is to knock a few dollars off the fees paid by the developers who've been awarded a feasibility license.
Announced last month these developers have been told they will see a halving of their annual levies for transmission and infrastructure licences, that the fees to apply for a research and demonstration licence have been cut from $300,000 to $20,000 and the fee to apply for a transmission and infrastructure licence has been cut from $300,000 to $150,000.
Now to you and I, these types of savings would be like manna from heaven, but to a developer looking to invest millions if not billions into a project, they're little more than a drop in the ocean (pardon the pun).
The government must do more if they are to stop the catalogue of collapsed projects from growing anymore.
The development roadmap needs to be accelerated (currently feasibility licenses allow for a full seven years of R&D investigations), the regulatory approvals process needs to be accelerated and any financial incentives need to actually mean something to a consortium for whom a few hundred thousand dollars is small change.
Maybe the reforms to the EPBC Act which were passed through parliament last week will help to speed things up but the climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen and his minions need to pull some big rabbits out of the hat and fast or Gippsland Skies won't be the last to fall.
Thinking cap on, minister.
To get the best analysis and insight of what's happening in APAC's energy sector, sign up for a free trial.
OPINION
From the editor: what's to be done with Australia's struggling offshore wind sector
Another project has collapsed. That makes four. And counting.
Why so glum, minister? | Credits: ENB
Usually when I come to write my regularly column first thing on a Friday morning I look back over the week's events, see what's made the pages of ENB and decide which story to pick up on.
But this week I've been inspired by a story which has been published literally within the last hour – the news that a third offshore wind project planned for the Gippsland declared zone has bitten the dust.
Confirmed to me in a statement from the project's developers AGL, Gippsland Skies will soon do what the Gippsland Dawn and the Kent Offshore Wind Project have already done and surrender their feasibility license back to the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar.
Industry sources who asked to remain anonymous say the decision's been taken by the AGL-led consortium due to a number of factors centred around the increasingly risky development landscape and the impact of changes in the US on the stresses and strains on their global portfolio.
Now to be fair to the Australian government, there's not a lot they can do about the decision emanating from the White House and so surely then, if they want encourage development on Australian soil (and seas), they need to work extra hard overcome the challenges President Trump is throwing into the mix.
It's regularly said that Australia has some of the strongest and most consistent offshore wind areas on the planet, ideal for generating power. Then, with our population centres all found on the country's coastlines the transmission of this power only needs to get from the wind farms to the shoreline.
It's surely a no-brainer.
And yet aside from the projects falling like flies in the Gippsland, there's been a distinct lack of interest in the other five declared zones.
In the Hunter zone a grand total of eight applications were received for feasibility licences, with only Novocastrian Wind Pty Ltd being offered a feasibility license. And guess what – in August they too withdrew their plans.
In the Southern Ocean zone, one feasibility licence was issued to the Spinifex Offshore Wind Farm.
In the Illawarra zone, BlueFloat Energy, the only firm expressing any desire to develop the Illawarra zone, has formally asked the government to "consider not offering any licences in the Illawarra zone until after the upcoming federal election." And no news since then.
In the Indian Ocean zone, off the coast of Western Australia, three projects have been awarded preliminary feasibility licenses, which are yet to be possibly upgraded to full licenses.
And no licenses have been offered in the Bass Strait zone off Tasmania, even though the application period closed six months ago.
So, when faced with the challenges brought about by being a global corporation which has to contend with Trump's antics, what incentives do these developers see coming from the Australian government to make them more at ease with the notion of developing down under?
Apparently, the best they can come up with is to knock a few dollars off the fees paid by the developers who've been awarded a feasibility license.
Announced last month these developers have been told they will see a halving of their annual levies for transmission and infrastructure licences, that the fees to apply for a research and demonstration licence have been cut from $300,000 to $20,000 and the fee to apply for a transmission and infrastructure licence has been cut from $300,000 to $150,000.
Now to you and I, these types of savings would be like manna from heaven, but to a developer looking to invest millions if not billions into a project, they're little more than a drop in the ocean (pardon the pun).
The government must do more if they are to stop the catalogue of collapsed projects from growing anymore.
The development roadmap needs to be accelerated (currently feasibility licenses allow for a full seven years of R&D investigations), the regulatory approvals process needs to be accelerated and any financial incentives need to actually mean something to a consortium for whom a few hundred thousand dollars is small change.
Maybe the reforms to the EPBC Act which were passed through parliament last week will help to speed things up but the climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen and his minions need to pull some big rabbits out of the hat and fast or Gippsland Skies won't be the last to fall.
Thinking cap on, minister.
To get the best analysis and insight of what's happening in APAC's energy sector, sign up for a free trial.
RELATED ARTICLES
THEMES:
TOPICS:
< PREVIOUS ARTICLE
Opinion: What the intervention of the UN special rapporteur as an 'amicus curiae' means for the legal challenges against Woodside's North West Shelf project
NEXT ARTICLE >
Slugcatcher: Offshore gas beats offshore wind
Get the Energy News Bulletin Newsletter delivered free each day