A report written for the Government is reluctantly conceding there is a role for gas to be burnt to generate electricity.
But it sticks to the goal of phasing out gas over time.
This transition could come at a cost, with small gas users like households or restaurants which cook with gas having to pay higher prices.
And large users like the Taranaki branch of Methanex might even have to shut down.
This information comes in a new document, an issues paper for the draft Gas Transition Plan, which has been unveiled along with a raft of other energy papers which were dumped en masse.
The paper comes against a background of electricity insecurity, which was highlighted by Transpower in May and again a month later.
In addition, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has warned of gas reserves slipping below the 10-year mark.
Despite this, the paper says the gas that is available needs to have a role in ensuring electricity keeps flowing down the wire on cold, still, dry evenings in winter.
An earlier document forecast 200 megawatts of gas-fired peaking plants being built by 2035, which would be available for transition to biofuel part way through their life expectancy.
These would be able to start up more quickly than the existing thermal plants at Huntly, which can take hours to become productive and so are unsuitable as back up when the wind can stop blowing in a few minutes, leaving turbine blades motionless.
In making the case for some continued use of gas, the paper concedes New Zealand’s gas fields are in the “decline phase of their operational lives.”
Despite this, “fossil gas generation plays a critical role in ensuring security of electricity supply,” the paper says.
“The need for flexible fast-start peaking capacity will become even more important as the system incorporates more wind and solar variability.
“With its fast-start capability and stable cost profile, fossil gas may still be needed to play a small but important role in security of supply and price stability in the electricity market as it approaches 100 per cent renewable.”
The paper has bad news for Methanex and the fertiliser industry.
Methanex uses about 40% of New Zealand’s gas production, down from a higher level after idling a plant in the Waitara Valley.
Methanex uses natural gas to make the liquid fuel Methanol, but would “either exit (the industry) or switch to low-emissions alternatives.”
This matches statements by Methanex itself. Its most recent annual report said it had gas secured up til 2029.
"We cannot provide assurance that our contracted suppliers will be able to meet their commitments or that exploration and development activities in New Zealand will be successful to enable us to operate at capacity or at all," the report said.
"We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to secure additional natural gas on commercially acceptable terms. These factors could have an adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition."
A similar fate is could be in store for Ballance Agri-nutrients, which uses natural gas to make fertiliser, but might have to stop.
The paper also highlights an additional problem from this. It says commercial and residential users of gas use low volumes but are by far the most numerous consumers of the product.
Any fast move away from large-scale gas users like power stations could lumber them with a huge share of the cost of maintaining the network of pipes.
"Many household consumers also face high switching costs that could be difficult for them to meet, and they may need to be (financially) supported," the paper says.
The paper also says costs will make existing offshore gas fields uneconomic and the fossil gas market may need to rely on gas fields on land.
"As we take action to reduce emissions from the fossil gas sector, we also need to ensure security of supply is maintained," it says.
"It is likely that the needs of fossil gas consumers, particularly the thermal electricity generators, will become increasingly variable, which will mean the gas system will need to become more flexible than it is today.
"As our fields age, we may also see declining supply-side flexibility."
The paper says over time, there might need to be more investment in gas storage to meet this need.
And there should be more development of biogas, even though it could be more expensive than fossil gas.
It adds there could be potential for green hydrogen to add to the energy mix.
Finally, the paper hints at the rehabilitation of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS).
This involves keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere by pumping it into large underground reservoirs, such as deleted gas fields.
This has gone way out of fashion as a climate change solution in New Zealand, but the Gas Transition Plan raises it as a possibility, even though "we need to understand the risk.
"There is an opportunity for upstream producers to capture their emissions and reinject them into gas reservoirs," it says.
"Emissions capture technology is technically and economically viable for upstream fossil gas production, so it does not require any government subsidy. It may also be possible to capture combustion emissions from major gas users."
The risks of CCUS in New Zealand have been discussed often in the past and they include this county's seismic intensity.
The Gas Transition Plan is open to submissions.
In the meantime, the Government says it is sticking to its aspirational goal of having the electricity system 100% renewable by 2030 and all energy 50% renewable by 2035.
52 Comments
Yet the greens try and put a handbrake on that here. The point is first the UK govt along with Germany which is firing up its coal fired power stations are thinking about their citizens first and trying to keep costs down. Point being we have alot of resources that could help NZ like Gold , Coal, etc etc but as usual or govt is thinking about how we look to the rest of the world. Imagine what the UK would do if Chippy said oh we don't like you doing that. They would say see this middle finger
Colin Cameron - please stick to facts.
The North Sea fields are well into their declining years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
'UK sources give a range of estimates of reserves, but even using the most optimistic "maximum" estimate of ultimate recovery, 76% had been recovered as of the end of 2010
Secure reliable low cost? How about: bl--dy temporary?
Desperation and bluff.
That peak was a long, long time ago. And they all peak. We have to differentiate between the possible and the implausable - funny the way the narrative is disintegrating/polarising but not getting better at fact-checking. The fact isn't what they did, the fact is what is there. We must resist allowing belief to make the former the latter - it's what got us into the polycrisis in the first place (belief in endless growth, which was actually backed by drawing down finite stocks.
As usual the govt are way behind.
Methanex are already on the way out. Waitara Valley shut a while back (due to lack of Gas availability) https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/rnz/300268355/75-jobs-to-go-as-taranak…
I believe the main plant hasn't got any contracted gas after 2030, and is likely to be decommissioned by 2035.
Further, taking the comment ""As our fields age, we may also see declining supply-side flexibility.""
They are already in decline and we are already seeing supply side issues (hence methanex mothballing WV above). Maui and Kapuni are on life support. While Pohokura is struggling to maintain contracted supply as is Kupe.
There will be a point where the pressure isn't enough to maintain the lines (Definitely once Methanex stop), in which case everything stops regardless of whether we have Gas in the ground or not.
[ Unnecessary smear removed. Don't do it. Ed ]
My understanding is that the soundbite does not match what is happening behind the scenes. But ultimately all irrelevant when you look at what is going on around town. The big players have left, and the minor ones have scaled back drilling and exploration. I don't think any seismic has been undertaken in years. There is no more economically viable gas.
Noncents, you are quite wrong to say "there is no more economically viable gas" out there. It is just that the search has been halted and lead-times on developments mean that it is now almost too late to start looking again. Volumetrically significant gas discoveries are most likely to be discovered in the offshore areas because the more accessible onshore areas have already been well picked over. However, by Labour preventing companies undertaking exploration activities in the offshore, where the most potential for sizeable/economic discoveries still exists, it is no surprise that exploration companies have quit New Zealand. If renewables fall short of replacing our ideologically inspired decline in gas reserves, then NZ will suffer. Coal imports again?
There is gas, but it is not viable either economically or technologically. It is likely that the east coast has massive reserves. But it is in deep water, with plate tectonics to contend with, and is likely not in large pockets, but smaller bubble wrap type occurances. So not even remotely worth chasing.
If it was even remotely viable or likely then the big players would have got the lawyers involved (just like they always do). The fact they didn't is all the info needed to know its not viable.
Coal is our go to, when Pohokura was down, our imports of Indonesian coal increased. We could possibly create an import terminal, but the lead time on that is already escaping us.
Large economically viable accumulations of gas in the offshore Taranaki and potentially in other west coast and east coast sedimentary basins are still likely to exist. On a global scale, New Zealand's offshore basins are relatively unexplored still. If you are referring to gas hydrates in the deep offshore East Coast Basin then, yes, that is still technologically a long way off. More conventional accumulations in that basin also face the challenge of limited source rock presence but in other offshore basins our coals should do the trick for us in that regard.
Is this the Castalia report? Its second point is that we have to rely on Carbon Capture, and positions it as a 'low cost option' - epic fail. I hope MBIE didn't listen to that.
Natural gas has been on the way out for years. High electricity spot prices over the last few years were mostly driven by unreliable gas supply. The oil majors all left several years ago because there is nothing more worth extracting here.
We should be planning for a gas-free future, but there is a huge disconnect between builders and government energy policy. Many new homes (including mine unfortunately) are built with a bottled gas set up for water heating, presumably on the basis it saves them from designing a 1m2 area for a hot water cylinder. Having a 45kg gas bottle delivered every couple of months is a PITA.
Didn't we ban oil exploration? I'd love to be corrected but surely we would expect oil majors to leave if they can't explore??
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-bans-oil-ex…
Alot of new builds have the HWC outside. I perfer gas for rentals for three reasons first if you have a leak inside from HWC usually tenant dosnt notice. Increases the water pressure on existing houses tenants love that thirdly everyone can have a shower no matter how long again tenants love that forgot fourth point on older houses you when converted to gas you gain more storage as no longer need HWC also in Christchurch with the amount of s... they were putting in the water HWC were only lasting 2 to 3 yrs so they rust out. The infinitues are way better. See some landlords do think of their tenants.
There will be a point where the pressure isn't enough to maintain the lines (Definitely once Methanex stop)
Are you speaking of actual pressure (gas)? Methanex take >40% of all gas out of the ground in NZ, if they were to shut down, gas production would have to be cut back massively as we would have too much pressure.
Clowns - the country is run by clowns - its time for them to take the whole circus and bugger off
If it comes to a choice between coal and gas, gas wins hands down - and as has been stated we will need something to power the grid some of the time
So we should be encouraging gas exploration and development to both ensure we can keep the lights on and move away from dirtier fuel sources
Or are we intending to import LNG from Aus.
"The Government is reluctantly conceding there is a role for gas to be burnt to generate electricity."
The stench of hypocrisy. We don't give a shit who mines all the stuff we want, as long as we keep our hands clean. Who cares where all the metals and minerals come from-working conditions in the mines in the Congo? Not our problem.
It is as someone once said, an inconvenient truth that now and for many years to come, our economy depends largely on the fossil fuel industry. If we are really determined to cut them out, then then we need to understand that we will have a very different economy in which we do less with less, but who wants to hear that.
it will be a long time before a wind farm can be built without ffs and then they must be maintained and replaced.
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.