So, what have we learned this week?

Well, for starters, with just under a year to go until the government's gas reservation scheme is meant to be implemented (anyone got any odds on a delay to the 1 July start date?), the arguments about how it should work are not going away any time soon.

And now, rather that it just being a case of the commercial parties with skin in the game voicing their opinions, it's the interests of Australia's multifarious states and territories which have been coming to the fore.

Since ministers King and Bowen and Senator Ayres did their press conference on 7 May to (re-)announce the scheme's implementation, we have heard all manner of opinions being proffered from voices within the industry.

Shell's Cecile Wake, Santos' Kevin Gallagher, Beach's Brett Woods, Woodside's Liz Westcott, GLNG's Stephen Harty, Chevron's Balaji Krishnamurthy and INPEX's Bill Townsend have all had their moment in the sun to – typically – rip into the plan and tell the government how to improve it.

But this week, in the wake of the closing of the submissions window in the government's consultation process, we have heard from voices representing the states and territories.

First off, we heard from the NT – home to Santos' DLNG and INPEX's Ichthys – in the form of the Darwin Major Business Group (DMBG). Now, perhaps not the heaviest of hitters, the DMBG nonetheless made a sensible sounding suggestion for the Beetaloo to be exempt from domestic gas reservation obligations during its establishment phase, with any involvement delayed until 2040.

"A time-limited grandfathering arrangement, potentially until 2040 and subject to periodic review, would help improve investment certainty during this critical establishment period," the business group has told the government ahead of the scheme starting in July 2027," they said.

Similarly NT-focused, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chimed in, saying: "Applying a uniform obligation to the Northern Territory – an emerging area for LNG production and export, with distinct investment and infrastructure dynamics – may deter new supply if flexibility is not clearly defined.

"Furthermore, the Northern Territory simply does not have the population to absorb 20% of the gas produced in the Beetaloo Basin, nor the domestic infrastructure to carry these volumes across the country."

Then on Wednesday we heard from Western Australia – direct from the horse's mouth – as Roger Cook caught a few off guard with a slight change in tact.

According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, Cook and his government are considering the possible benefits of the state being included in federal scheme.

"We're going to continue to look at what the arrangements are that the federal government is proposing to see if the system can work better," he's reported as saying. "There might be some advantages for harmonising our arrangements with theirs."

However, never one to step on Woodside's toes, when asked if there was any appetite for the federal scheme's yearly supply obligations to be applied in WA, Cook said: "We're not going to make immediate changes."

And off the back of Cook's comments, the DomGas Alliance – led by Cook's former political adversary Mia Davies - stepped in to say any changes that impact WA must not leave consumers worse off.

And then finally this week, we heard – again straight from the horse's mouth – from Queensland, as the state's leaders David Crisafulli MP and David Janetzki banged the drum for the interests of the local producers.

In their submission to Canberra's consultation process, the Queensland government warns the proposed 20% domestic reservation scheme unfairly targets Queensland – which does the "heavy lifting" to supply the east coast gas market - and risks undermining the state's economy and national energy security.

And their suggestions? The Sunshine state government called for the reservation scheme's implementation to be deferred and for it to be redesigned to avoid destroying "investment and new supply, increasing domestic gas prices over the long term and creating industry uncertainty."

We're still waiting to hear from NSW, Vic and SA, but the sensible money says we'll be hearing from them soon enough.

One interesting aside which came to light courtesy of a FOI request from ourselves has either shown a lack of coordination in Canberra or that (sometimes) FOI searches aren't all that thorough.

ENB asked the offices of the two ministers and one senator for a record of all the times they had conferred in the six months leading up to 7 May when the announcement should be made.

And amazingly enough – despite the three politicians being able to make it to the same press conference on the same day and at the same time – according to the three FOIs filed, their offices didn't confer even once in that six month window.

It almost seems like the suggestions from some that the details-lite announcement was rushed out for political reasons might actually be true.