Luxon’s bad faith stunt
Luxon’s bad faith stunt
Written By:
- Date published:
8:56 am, October 1st, 2025 - 29 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, climate change, energy, national, politicans, same old national, science -
Tags:
Who has not heard Christopher Luxon blame Labour’s offshore oil and gas exploration ban for the gas crisis?
It does not matter how many times you explain that new oil and gas wells take a decade to discover, consent and build and there have been no significant finds for the past 20 years.
It does not matter how many times you explain that we have to leave existing oil and gas discoveries in the ground otherwise we will cook the planet.
It does not matter how many times that you explain how Aotearoa has signed up to the Paris Accord’s requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and future drilling may punch a hole in our obligations.
It does not matter how many times you explain that the civilised world which includes the EU, China and Britain but excluding the United States have requirements in free trade agreements that require strong adherence to global agreements about greenhouse gas emissions and that breaches will hurt our trade.
It does not matter how many times you ask them to think about their and our grandkids.
National, and for that matter NZ First, will revert back to blaming the Ardern Government for the gas shortage at every opportunity they can to mask their lack of an energy plan.
Which is why Luxon’s latest effort, privately seeking bipartisan agreement about the future of gas and oil drilling but almost immediately leaking the letter to the Herald is such a bad faith stunt.
From Jamie Ensor at the Herald:
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has written to Labour leader Chris Hipkins urging him to commit his party to supporting offshore exploration for natural gas for at least the next 10 years, in an effort to achieve a “credible, bipartisan approach”.
But Hipkins has called it a “political stunt rather than a genuine attempt at building bipartisan consensus”.
The letter, obtained exclusively by the Herald, includes a warning from Luxon that the possibility of a future Labour Government reinstating a ban on offshore gas exploration may “pose an insurmountable barrier for some investors”.
“You have said previously that, if elected, Labour will not spend its time ‘pausing, cancelling, and reviewing everything’,” Luxon wrote to Hipkins on Monday afternoon. “But bipartisanship must be more than a political slogan.
“I am writing to seek a commitment from the Labour Party to support offshore exploration for natural gas for at least the next 10 years.”
Luxon would be better off putting incentives into the building of renewables or reforming the electricity market so that household solar feeding into the National grid attracted a reasonable return. There is $200 million set aside for oil and gas drilling. This could buy a lot of solar panels.
His stunt is no more than the generation of hot air that would be better used for wind generation. The letter will continue his ability to blame Labour for the gas shortage. Despite this claim being clearly incorrect, to put it mildly.
Stand by for another 18 months of Labour being blamed for the natural gas shortage. Get your responses polished and ready.
Colour me not surprised.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/01/govts-damp-squib-energy-reforms-reject-8-of-10-review-recommendations/?utm_source=Newsroom&utm_campaign=fa83a2161b-Daily_Briefing+01.10.2025&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-fa83a2161b-47886425&mc_cid=fa83a2161b&mc_eid=49bcaeb6a5
”There is no grand vision behind the reform package announced Wednesday, beyond perhaps a commitment by the Government to double down on fossil fuels rather than seize the advantage presented by the dwindling costs and trade deficit-correcting potential of solar and wind power.
All eyes have been on Watts’ office since June, when he received the wide-ranging review of the electricity market commissioned by his predecessor last year, from Australian energy consultancy Frontier Economics.”
The government is putting up capital to make the energy market work better.
Action?
Will there be money for renewable projects, or anything but?
The Meridian chief was hopeful.
But he should not be.
They got a review to tell them that.
They claim uncertainty was the problem.
And certainty is gas (and oil?)(or will that end up being coal).
They chose $200 million set aside for oil and gas drilling.
They intend to build a terminal to import gas.
This will not be cheap energy.
These are the people who ended work on wind farms off Taranaki.
That is their
1. Establishing a one-stop-shop fast track approvals and permitting regime
2. Amendments to the RMA to speed up resource consenting
polity.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360840257/persistence-high-power-prices-blamed-lack-investment-new-supply
All that hopium isn't going to change the geological reality that there isn't a viable gas field sitting off our coast (or onshore in NI) waiting to be discovered. In 20 years of drilling before Labour put a halt to the rort nothing viable was found, so what's changed in the last 6 years. It's just kicking the can down the road for 10 years to try and preserve a sunset industry, and probably at taxpayers expense.
What was significant in Watt's announcement was the indication that this Government would support energy companies using Companies Act provisions to raise capital from shareholders to finance energy developments. So, Government will capitalise the companies and other shareholders will be asked to contribute a similar amount / share or dilute their shares. A smooth way of incrementally getting the Crown shareholding over 75% where Shane Jones, and the CTU's wish to fully re-nationalise the gentailers would be quite easy.
yup fairly much, the problem for NZ oil and gas is increasingly possible there are no significant viable fields remaining. For example, people still talking about the southern basin "potentially" holding blah blah amounts of oil or gas. Problem is, test wells drilled thus far, albeit not sizeable in numbers, has not revealed anything of economic magnitude. No amount of Shane Jones or Simeon Brown blowarsing will magically produce a gas field out of thin air if none exist
A bit of a win for NZFirst – first no sale of the gentailers to raise money for an energy investment.
Instead the offer of investment money to them.
If done wisely it could involve joint ownership projects (such as the thermal one)(rejected because they used the stockpile of cheap coal option to afford a an import facility to provide some of the most expensive gas in the world).
I doubt it would get to up to 75% (and a future buy out) while Peters or Jones were still around though. They don't have the money without raising taxation revenues or borrowing it.
PS. NACT would probably prefer a private sector partner, so they stay at 50% despite the extra input.
How about Meridian decides to build Onslow, which would cost about $15.5 billion, and Meridian's capitulation at about $15.5 billion, so a capital call of 100% of share price, we'd probably have very close to, or over, 75% Government ownership in one hit. It'd be doubtful that many private shareholders would be able to match that but it's what you get buying utility shares and expecting it to be a one way street, utilities have capital demands from time to time and it's up to shareholders to meet them, bit like being a Lloyds name.
The other gentailers could probably come up with other builds close to their capitalisations that would achieve similar ends, and Contact would either follow into part Government ownership, become a minnow and get gobbled up.
That was the situation Onslow would have covered.
Nothing in Luxon's electricity announcements will bring down New Zealanders' power bills.
Cost of living through power bills is where this government needed to focus, and they didn't.
Unless this economy picks up fast in 6 months, this is National's very first one-term government.
A(t)las, the CoC’s climate action ‘strategy’ is rated Highly Insufficient .
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/new-zealand
NAct1 is government by the sorted, for the sorted – new fossils bent on burning through what's left of old fossils – they not not care.
One element of todays so-called energy policy is the proposed importation of liquified gas. This is really stupid, even for the COC.
Not only is LNG really expensive, requiring bespoke port facilities and bulk carriers, but recent studies have shown that burning imported LNG produces far more CO2 than burning coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study
This offers a massive opportunity for the Left. They simply have to dump the budget proposed today for importing LNG and instead offer to significantly subsidize new battery storage connected with all existing and proposed solar and wind farms.
This will solve the "dry year low hydro lakes" scenario, because using battery storage (now much cheaper and efficient to do) means much more water can be retained in the lakes as base load.
Yes, some countries use hydro as their reserve.
SPC-hydro would only need to be partially used as reserve-it would still be the main source of power.
The power stored in the solar/wind charged batteries would be fed into the grid on a regular basis meaning less water would have to be used day to day from the lakes.
I'm talking about several billions being invested into battery storage rather than 16 billion into Lake Onslow.
Again, do the sums.
Battery storage with available tech is estimated to cost between $50 and $150/kwh. The Onslow scheme storage is estimated to cost $3.20/kwh
I'd like to see an expert argue comparative cost per kwh here joe. You may have a point. I remain skeptical of your numbers.
The recently consented 300MW Helios solar farm near Naseby can be built in two years. That is the kind of timeframe we need to sort out the energy gap.
The estimate I have seen for Onslow is 7-9 years. Doubtless that will be 10 years and 20 billion. But, in a strategic sense, the experts may conclude Onslow is needed as well as whatever solar and wind is developed.
Onslow would store 5TWh/5 million MWh.
Victoria's $160 million big battery stores 300 MWh.
You'd need 16,667 big batteries (5000000 ÷ 300 = 16,667) to equal Onslow.
Or 30 Victoria big batteries every week for ten years.
If it is so obviously better then it will happen (and of course I would support it).
Out of interest whose numbers are you using and have they been peer reviewed?
It's arithmetic.
/
We are not so far apart here joe. If your numbers are right then Onslow may be the long term solution.
In the meantime solar panels with battery storage can be put on roofs very quickly (I heard over 30,000 houses/buildings in NZ last 2 years) and 300MW solar farms with 500,000 panels can be built in 2 years which, especially if battery storage is attached, will be a relatively quick short term solution which is what is needed.
NZ's use of solar power is scandalously low-rooftop provides 14% of Australia's power. In NZ it is 1%.
I was noting where there is more wind or solar power farms (and battery onto grid) supply this provides the option to leave some water in the lakes (or one lake) and it becomes a way of having some (greater than now) reserve.
The other path is less demand on the grid via energy saving and solar power in homes.
Bear in mind that all of the LPG used in the South Island is imported, some from Taranaki, and a good proportion from Australia.
True, but AI tells me that:
"the South Island's industrial sites account for …11% of NZ's LPG use."
I think any figures out of the gas industry can be taken with a large pinch, probably the only certainty is that the industry is in a sad place and looking at considerable stranded assets in the very near future. South island not so much as not much will change, but up North it's going to get very sad very fast as field are exhausted.
Hospitality would probably account for that 11%
National's had a comms reset. It's gone from "we've inherited this mess from the previous mob" to "we're open to bipartisan politics but the other side still wants to play silly buggers so we're morally untouchable". Still the other side's fault, of course.
Bad faith wherever you look Micky.
Yep, bad faith from Collins during the teachers negotiations.
LyingMisspeaking about wage levels.Mr Thumb
telling fibspeddling misinformation about nurses income.And to think workers have had their rights diminished during negotiations.
I feel an electioneering slogan coming on.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a main stream media that called out their liars.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360840782/labour-asked-energy-bipartisanship-41-days-luxons-letter
But wait there's more micky, labour approached national a month ago , and luxon either wasn't informed or he's really playing stupid games, I'm not sure what's worse!
And finally Luxon is forced to admit their direct leak to the media before Hipkins had even got it:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360842011/luxons-office-admits-leaking-hipkins-letter-herald