As the Strait of Hormuz crisis unfurls, more and more countries are going to find out the answer to the question: did you have a serious energy policy?
We have friendly understandings with Singapore, South Korea and Japan that we need their refined petroleum products just like they need our LNG, but good intentions alone don't fill tankers.
What's really funny is that France has signalled that it's "open" to a new submarine deal if AUKUS falls through!
Yeah, local and international experts have been warning Australia for years to sort out this specific problem but successive governments just ignored it. We'll improvise and bumble through though, as always. Angels watch over fools and drunks.
Australia has among the world's best solar and wind resources but conservative governments, egged on by the Murdoch owned press and fossil fuel industry, have sabotaged the transition that at every turn. It's every bit as tragic as Taiwan's abandonment of nuclear power.
Excellent piece. What I appreciated most was that it shifted the discussion away from abstract geopolitics and toward the underlying industrial and energy realities that actually determine resilience during crises.
The contrast between resource wealth and true energy security was particularly important:
having resources is not the same thing as having refining capacity, strategic reserves, logistics resilience, and long-duration sustainability.
I also found the Australia angle refreshing because it is rarely discussed seriously in mainstream coverage. The article raises uncomfortable but legitimate questions about globalization, deindustrialization, and whether advanced military partnerships alone can compensate for structural economic vulnerabilities.
At the same time, I think the situation is probably more nuanced than outright collapse narratives. Australia still retains significant adaptive capacity, alliances, institutional stability, and strategic advantages. But the broader warning about overdependence on fragile supply chains is very difficult to dismiss after recent global shocks.
Thought-provoking and worth reading even for people who may disagree with parts of the framing.
Hi Jon! Taiwan had cargoes "on the water" through the end of April. Now I think we are transitioning to buying gas on the spot market. It's not been as bad as you would think in part because of the demand destruction in China (as they switch on coal) and in part because we can outbid poorer countries for the remaining cargoes.
Thanks, Angelica. Sounds like poor countries who cannot afford current LGS prices are part of the demand destruction required to make production and consumption match.
Yeah nah, roast us, we deserve it.
We have friendly understandings with Singapore, South Korea and Japan that we need their refined petroleum products just like they need our LNG, but good intentions alone don't fill tankers.
What's really funny is that France has signalled that it's "open" to a new submarine deal if AUKUS falls through!
Yeah, local and international experts have been warning Australia for years to sort out this specific problem but successive governments just ignored it. We'll improvise and bumble through though, as always. Angels watch over fools and drunks.
Our luck can't last forever... can it? (We would get luckier if we made better decisions.)
No comeuppance!
Australia has natural gas that refineries could convert to gasoline and diesel. New Zealand did the in the 1980s. https://hargraves.substack.com/p/seafuel-914
Australia has among the world's best solar and wind resources but conservative governments, egged on by the Murdoch owned press and fossil fuel industry, have sabotaged the transition that at every turn. It's every bit as tragic as Taiwan's abandonment of nuclear power.
Having said that Daniel, no amount of solar and wind can replace jet fuel.
We were told that Taiwan had two weeks worth of LNG at the start of the war. Have they been able to buy what they need on the spot market?
Excellent piece. What I appreciated most was that it shifted the discussion away from abstract geopolitics and toward the underlying industrial and energy realities that actually determine resilience during crises.
The contrast between resource wealth and true energy security was particularly important:
having resources is not the same thing as having refining capacity, strategic reserves, logistics resilience, and long-duration sustainability.
I also found the Australia angle refreshing because it is rarely discussed seriously in mainstream coverage. The article raises uncomfortable but legitimate questions about globalization, deindustrialization, and whether advanced military partnerships alone can compensate for structural economic vulnerabilities.
At the same time, I think the situation is probably more nuanced than outright collapse narratives. Australia still retains significant adaptive capacity, alliances, institutional stability, and strategic advantages. But the broader warning about overdependence on fragile supply chains is very difficult to dismiss after recent global shocks.
Thought-provoking and worth reading even for people who may disagree with parts of the framing.
I appreciate it! I always try and find a fresh angle for my pieces. I think if nothing else, it raises a discussion.
Hi Jon! Taiwan had cargoes "on the water" through the end of April. Now I think we are transitioning to buying gas on the spot market. It's not been as bad as you would think in part because of the demand destruction in China (as they switch on coal) and in part because we can outbid poorer countries for the remaining cargoes.
Thanks, Angelica. Sounds like poor countries who cannot afford current LGS prices are part of the demand destruction required to make production and consumption match.
I got a kick out of your description of Australia as "a country that is basically a gas station with marsupials"
Some people think it's more of an iron ore mine with marsupials, which is fair enough!