NZ's natural gas supply running out faster than thought
Shane Jones. Photo: RNZ
The country's natural gas supply is running out faster than previously thought.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said previous forecasts showed annual gas production falling below 100 petajoules (PJ) by 2029, but revised forecasts indicated that level would be reached by next year.
A petajoule or PJ is a unit measurement of energy use commonly used for large-scale energy use, with one petajoule equal to one million billion joules.
MBIE also said as of January this year, natural gas reserves were down 27% compared to last year - also falling faster than previously estimated.
"In 2024, natural gas proven plus probable (2P) reserves reduced from 1300 PJ to 948 PJ," MBIE head of data service delivery Karlene Tipler said.
"The reduction in natural gas reserves is largely driven by field operators reducing their estimates of gas readily extractable in the ground by 234 PJ."
MBIE said contingent gas reserves, or gas that existed in the ground but could not be extracted for various reasons such as economic or technical, increased by 184 PJ or 10% on last year.
"Some of this increase can be attributed to natural gas reserves being downgraded to contingent resources," Tipler said.
"A significant contributor to this is Pohokura field, which included a large volume of contingent gas which had previously not been reported."
Tipler said some contingent gas may have the potential to be upgraded to 2P if there were changes to economic or technical conditions.
Government says data proves it's 'correct to act now'
Resources Minister Shane Jones said the decline in gas reserves was a "stark reminder" of why the government was seeking greater investment in exploration and production.
"New Zealand needs a secure supply of affordable and reliable gas for industry to continue and for Kiwis to keep the lights on," Jones said.
"A 27% year-on-year decline in our natural gas reserves is further proof that the Coalition Government has made the right decisions in overturning the oil and gas ban, and is willing to become a cornerstone investor in gas production," he said.
As part of Budget 2025, the Government announced $200 million over four years for co-investment in new domestic gas field developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
SMEG returns to New World
New World is serving up kitchen style with its latest promotion. This article was prepared by New World and is being published by the New Zealand Herald as advertorial. New World is once again serving up a big dollop of kitchen style with its latest promotion. For the past six years, these eagerly awaited campaigns have been elevating kitchens across the country. This year, New World has once again, partnered with premium brand SMEG to offer a kitchenware collection that combines luxury with everyday functionality. The promotion launches June 9 and runs until August 31, or while stocks last. New World's retail marketing manager Sarah Austin says the SMEG kitchenware range was chosen for its premium quality and useability. As with previous promotions, the range is expected to be hugely popular. 'Our promotions are all about giving customers the chance to add a little bit of wonderful to their weekly shop,' she says. 'We know New Zealanders are familiar with and love the SMEG brand, but treating themselves to quality kitchenware isn't often a priority. This promotion gives New World shoppers the chance to elevate their kitchen space with a touch of luxury and can collect stickers just by doing their usual shop.' The SMEG range is finished in high gloss while the brasier is cast iron, making it ideal for low-and-slow cooking and safe for both the stovetop and oven. The range has been chosen so customers can choose the items they like, without needing to collect the whole set, with one sticker collected for every $20 spent in store and online**. Items can be collected by redeeming between 20 stickers for the utensil rest to 55 stickers for the larger baker. Shoppers can also use a combination of stickers and cash to collect items. The cast iron braiser is a Clubcard exclusive and only available with 45 stickers and a cash top-up. Value is top of mind this year and New World's fresh and improved Clubcard programme offers a truly rewarding shopping experience with our own New World Dollars – a currency that turns everyday shopping into real value. With no minimum spend, customers earn every time they shop and can redeem New World Dollars like cash in-store or online. Combined with exclusive Clubcard deals, prize opportunities, and exciting campaigns like SMEG, it's easier than ever for Kiwis to get more from their grocery shop – all backed by our enhanced app for a seamless, personalised experience and rewards for every dollar you spend. Throughout the SMEG promotion New World teams across Aotearoa will be helping customers to keep track of what stock is available and what's running out. 'We anticipate the promotion is going to be super popular, and it's important to remember it's only while stocks last,' says Sarah. 'Some items will be more sought after than others, so customers should redeem their stickers as soon as they have enough for their chosen pieces, or they may lose out.' You can keep an eye on your local New World's Facebook page for updates on stock availability and take note of the in-store signage about what's available and what might be running low. As we always say, if you really want a particular item, don't sit on your stickers, they are strictly while stocks last.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
