sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The energy industry thinks getting gas from offshore drilling might be faster and easier than its critics suppose

Economy / news
The energy industry thinks getting gas from offshore drilling might be faster and easier than its critics suppose
Pohokura gas field, Taranaki
Pohokura gas field, Taranaki

The energy industry thinks it might be able to extract gas from under the ocean more quickly than critics suggest.

That is because tens of thousands of previously written reports on the state of the earth’s crust under the sea are available for public inspection. 

In addition, gas companies would drill close to existing oil and gas fields to eke out product from an established facility, or to acquire gas from a branching or adjacent reservoir. 

These methods could avert the need for costly and sometimes fruitless quests for oil and gas in virgin territory. 

They might also help the local gas industry win the race with imported Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to replenish New Zealand’s gas reserves. 

The Government has said it wants an LNG terminal to be ready for the winter of 2026. It will pass legislation to remove any barriers and Cabinet will debate this matter further in October. The domestic energy industry is reluctant to put a time frame on its own efforts, though it suggests 18 to 24 months as a possible number.  But it says it is awaiting legislation and stresses that both LNG and local gas production need companies to do the work on a commercial basis safe from changed legislation from a new administration.  

This problem has arisen in the wake of the previous government’s ban on new offshore oil and gas prospecting in 2018. The current administration blames this for a dwindling supply of gas which has pushed electricity spot prices sky high and led to some industrial plant actually stopping production.  

Labour says new gas fields were not being found even before the ban. But at any rate, the current government has committed to restoring the supply of gas either by local exploration or by imports of LNG.

Oversight of the gas industry comes from New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M), which is a branch of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and its efforts have produced a library of geology which is bulging with information.

“The catalogue contains information and data relating to 13,800 reports on coal, minerals and petroleum, 1,200 seismic surveys, and 47,300 wells and drillholes,” NZP&M says. 

One of these maps shows the number of oil wells drilled in this country over the years as small circles and has the area of 3D seismic testing shown as rectangles. 

Seismic surveys are done when a sound wave is sent down through the sea and into the ocean floor. The pattern of its returning echo gives a clue about the rock structure underneath.  Surveys like this are essential precursors for actual drilling.  And when that drilling takes place, rock samples taken from the well head can be analysed for further information, even if the well itself came up dry.. All the information gleaned in this way has to be made public under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

“This includes physical core samples, all seismic and aerial survey data, and petroleum well data,” NZP&M says. 

“This technical data is made publicly available at the earliest of five years after it was acquired, or when a permit ends…..this is a free, public service available to anyone, anywhere.”   

An exception to the five-year rule is made for some classes of business, and those companies have to give up their information after 15 years.

Maps are included in the catalogue, and they provide a visual representation of the geographic extent of the data. The density of petroleum wells and surveys provides a snapshot of areas where effort has historically been targeted. These are concentrated in and around Taranaki but have been undertaken in many other places as well, including Northland and off the coast of the South Island. 

In addition, NZP&M manage collections of core samples taken from drilling operations at a special facility in Featherston, called The Core Store.

Meanwhile an umbrella group, Energy Resources Aotearoa (ERA), says there are three ways in which the prospecting industry could take advantage of a renewed search for gas. 

One would be to undertake appraisals of wells that have been drilled but have not yet been assessed. The second method would be aimed at positions close to existing gas fields. This is known as near field tie-ins. They would leverage off existing infrastructure to search for gas close to existing wells, and would thus require less capital investment upfront. The third method would be to search for gas in so-far unproductive stretches of ocean. 

“That’s probably the least likely option,” says the ERA’s chief executive, John Carnegie.

“But the near field tie-ins are likely to produce gas, if it’s there, quicker and more cheaply than imported gas (via LNG terminals).”

The ERA has meanwhile has joined other industry groups in seeking a bi-partisan approach to energy security, saying energy projects are long term things, and need a consistent approach spanning several electoral cycles to make investments worthwhile. 

Carnegie remains hopeful that this can be achieved, and the current government is looking at ways of safeguarding long term investment from the three year electoral cycle. Details of how this will be done are still not clear.      

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

35 Comments

If as Labour attest , no new gas was being found before the ban , why ban it ? ... the drilling provides highly paid jobs , if nothing is found , so what ... guys get paid , service businesses keep running ... 

.... why are Labour so frigging thick ?

Up
16

Ah, the Boeing cost-plus model of make-work in marginal electoral seats….

Up
4

Labour was saying that no commercially viable gas deposits have been found in recent years.

Only your first article actually talks about a discovery, and doesn't say if it is commercially viable.

If there's been no further public news about this find since 2020, that would suggest it is not commercially viable and Labour are correct.

Up
2

So why not let them keep prospecting, sinking money into the economy regardless of the outcome? Worst case scenario would be they don't find anything worthwhile after x years then pack a sad and leave NZ forever until the next company tries. Labour wins bigger than saying they can't even look no matter what. They're drilling a few holes in the seabed, not open cast mining in Fjordland. Stopping them even trying is just saying we don't want money.

Up
9

They're leaving already, not dumb enough to keep drilling dry wells - the easy stuff was drilled first. 

Pohokura, Kupe and Maui have been depleting for decades.

Beach Energy has said after recent dissapointing results at Kupe that they'll simply sweat the asset.

O&G shareholders have been completely mauled for the last decade they're generally not dishing out free money anywhere let alone to a tiny backwater like NZ.

Up
0

Oh BS Lanth. Listen to Ginny tell Mike there have been no new gas discoveries in 20 years. She doesn't use big words like commercial. It does also highlight how lightweight Hosking and Mark Mitchell are - though it is hard to tell what team those two are batting for.

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/pollie…

There has been more recent public info about the discovery. I recommend Google - despite dropping the Don't be evil stance.

Up
2

profile,

In an article here just a few weeks ago, headed; NZ is running out of gas, literally, the authors wrote this; "What has changed is tht all the extra drilling hasn't turned up much extra gas in the past few years. This is despite record amounts spent on new wells-nearly $1.30 billion between 2020 2024. Energy companies now think there's less gas than previously thought".

I didn't support the ban and I would be delighted if more gas were found. We need it both for the economy now and to help smooth the transition to a lower carbon economy in the future.

Up
0

And why are labour still polling above 20% ? There’s an epidemic of thick in NZ

Up
4

I guess some people value things like healthcare and the environment more than they care about some misguided virtue signaling from a previous leader? The main alternatives are hardly covering themselves in glory. 

Having said that, I'm not a Labour supporter myself. 

Up
3

So 61,000 combined sources of info and the industry is just “hopeful”? This feels a lot like making decisions about NZ’s energy future on a wing and a prayer.

If the free market has already decided there is nothing viable there, why are we chucking public money at it trying to prove otherwise? 

Up
7

The " free market " got booted out by the previous government ... with no prior warning , no consultation ... Labour are a bunch of thickos ... 

Up
15

Labour didn't boot anyone out, they just announced they were not going to issue new permits - consistent with climate goal the previous National government signed us up for.

  All existing permits were still valid, and indeed drilling continued in these under Labour, it's just that they didn't find anything.

Up
22

Yeah , all they got is to blame Labour , don't take it away from the poor old fossils.  

Up
5

Yeah. At least the Hyundai ship builders got a couples of txts half an hour before the public announcement that NZ was cancelling their contract.

Up
4

Labour didn't cancel anyones exploration permits, they just stopped issuing new ones. The equivalent would be saying to Hyundai that we still want the 2 ships already on order, but no more after that. Many of the older permits have since been relinquished as nothing worthwhile was found.

Up
4

Those 99 year exploration leases run out already Gummy? Sorry whose a thicko again?

Up
2

... people who don't know their " whose " from their " who's " are ....

Up
4

the near field tie-ins are likely to produce gas, if it’s there, quicker and more cheaply than imported gas

Isn't this what OMV spent a few years doing in 2020 and they found nothing?

Up
6

It’s nothing to do with Labour. Since the 1960’s there has been offshore oil and gas exploration and plenty of surveying offshore with large amounts of current permits which are still open for development. One of the main reasons there’s no commitments from any major energy company is purely economics. The current permits either do not have economical survey data worth developing.

Up
3

I guess compared to the $ 100m(probably $ 200m ) cost of a LNG terminal , and the higher cost of the LNG gas , they are now economic. 

But you'd have to ignore both been blown out of the water by solar , wind and Geothermal. 

Up
2

"For the first time, and in spite of Australia's position as one of the world's biggest gas exporters, the country is preparing to do something that was once unthinkable.

It is on the cusp of becoming a gas importer."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-05/gas-giant-australia-prepares-to-…

Up
3

from the linked article: "They point out that Australia does not have a physical shortage of gas so much as an artificial one, given most of the country's supplies are exported via long-term contracts to lucrative markets in North Asia."

Up
2

And?

They have a physical shortage of gas available to the (east coast) Australian market that can only be solved (apparently) by importing.

Up
1

The issue is that gas is hard to transport, quite different to coal and oil. This means price and even availability is highly fragmented - different markets don't efficiently effect each other. So one gas network in Australia can be running dry despite vast quantities being available to other networks, or earmarked straight for export. 

Presumably they could connect the various Australian networks, but I wouldn't like to see the price of building pipelines across the Outback. Maybe easier to build an import terminal. 

Up
3

The price, the time and the viability....probably best to move away from reliance upon it then....and thats when you've got some, unlike those of us who are rapidly finding we dont.

Up
1

Yes I agree - one way or another we will need to get away from these finite energy resources at some point. The sooner the better, while we still have cheap fossil fuels to build the new infrastructure. 

Up
1

NZ is lucky to have an assortment of fuels to use for electricity production. Why are we hell bent on continuing to use gas? From what I can see the only investment from industry into new production has been geothermal, hydro, solar and wind. Why burn a finite resource when we have renewables?

Up
6

Simple; reliability

Up
5

As shown this year, gas isn't always reliable. If we stick to a local exploration strategy we will only be as reliable as current exploration. If we go with an LNG terminal we will rely on others for our reliability. We know 100% that there are wind, solar and geothermal resources available, why take the gamble on gas?

Up
5

Relying on foreign owned shipping corporations to transport LNG to the bottom of the world for fair prices? You’re having a laugh. Just look at obscene price hikes the major shipping cartels have made over the last 5years. 
NZ as an island nation needs to bring back a national shipping line which can import and export at set rate while employing local.

Up
2

How is gas reliable? We don't have much and what we do have isn't cheap. 

Up
1

"Why are we hell bent on continuing to use gas?" Umm, process heat? Which you won't get from your windmill. Is swapping natural gas methanol for chinese coal derived methanol a win?

• Process heat accounts for 34 per cent of New Zealand’s energy consumption.
• About 56 per cent of process heat demand is supplied by burning fossil fuels, mainly coal or natural gas.

The availability of bioenergy and geothermal energy resources is highly dependent on location and sector.

 

Up
2

This is a power production thread, whilst I appreciate your argument, all it does is confirm we should switch power production to renewable's to protect what gas supplies we still have for industry's that need gas.

What you get from windmills is the ability to save water resulting in less volatile spot pricing for our electricity.

As for geothermal we have an abundance that isn't being used at present. If a company like Rio Tinto can see economic advantage of renewable power I'm sure others will follow if we build more production. 

Up
3

If I was in the GBH clique, I'd be very scared about now. 

The reference to Australia (LMBF, upthread) is entirely valid, and entirely parallel. 

They too, want to import LNG - to replace declining Bass Straight fields. Well, well, well (intended). That's what happens to finite resources, here as there, as everywhere. Not everyone can be an importer, and this is linkable to the Nordstream sabotage with no stretch at all. 

Re journalism - 

'That is because tens of thousands of previously written reports on the state of the earth’s crust under the sea are available for public inspection.' 

So, Eric, what did New Zealand journalism make of the 'thousands of reports''? They ARE public, after all. And were paid for by taxpayers, by decree of the Key/English format of National (theft for private gain - a hallmark). I'd have though journalism had an obligation....  No, of course not. Silly me. 

Up
2