CB, IMO, the direct end users (e.g. a small manufacturer such as...

CB,

IMO, the direct end users (e.g. a small manufacturer such as this wool processor, large manufacturers and power generators) all have the same problem - to maintain their business profitability (viability) they need another business - which also takes business risk - to be less profitable.

Not cross promoting as some here e.g. @jake0002 are shareholders in COE, but there is plenty of gas for sale in Vic sourced from the Gippsland Basin. So 110 TJ per year is a (relatively) tiny amount. The wool processors issue is they can't get secure supplies of cheap gas on a long term contract.

That is not just the fault of the LNG export market demand (primarily source from new CSG development) with shortage made up from other sources, it is the fault of years of under development in both upstream E&P and midstream processing/transportation capacity. Add to that the ever escalating F&D cost, regulation, abandonment costs and the delivered cost of a GJ today is far higher than that of the past.

Their last statement "Australia depends on reliable and affordable supplies of gas ..." is comrade friendly but just means other people should subside my business. If Australia has such abundant gas resources then get out of the wool business and deploy your capital in the gas E&P business and see how capital intensive it is and why the end product costs what it costs in today's world. The LNG guys don''t have it easy either (just as STO).

Australian consumers want good stuff cheap - nothing wrong with that notion - until unwillingness to pay market rates rises up. Nothing stopping government from getting into the gas E&P business either - how easy would that be ... never ending "free" capital source (the taxpayer), permit yourself wherever you wan to go, no need for profit ....

Most everyone loves the USA comparison on natgas pricing .... but Australian has neither the infrastructure, the producing shale basins (e.g. Marcellus) or the location advantages.