Browse
Log in / Register
Share
May 9, 2026 — Shell’s Australia chair, Cecile Wake, used a Sydney energy conference on Tuesday to deliver a sharp rebuke to the federal government’s planned gas-reservation law, describing it as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” and warning that forced oversupply could eventually create the very shortages the policy is meant to prevent.
Canberra is set to introduce the domestic gas reservation bill in Parliament this week. The legislation would require liquefied natural gas exporters on Australia’s East Coast to hold back a share of their output for domestic customers. The government says the policy is needed to prevent supply gaps and to take pressure off household and industrial power bills, which have become a volatile political issue in Australia.
Under the draft design, an energy regulator would determine from January 1, 2028 how much each exporter must reserve for the local market. The obligation may be set as high as one-fifth of a project’s production. The explicit goal is to deliberately oversupply the East Coast gas market by 110 percent of forecast demand — an unusually high buffer intended to make it almost impossible for supply to fall short.
The companies most directly in the firing line are Shell, through its stake in the Queensland Curtis LNG project, along with Origin Energy and Santos, which operate the other two East Coast LNG export plants. For those companies, every unit of gas directed into the domestic market at a regulated price is volume that cannot be sold at higher international prices. The policy therefore changes the economics of new gas-field development in the Queensland coal-seam gas basins that supply Australia’s eastern pipeline network.
Wake said Shell does not oppose the idea of a domestic gas reserve. Her objection is to the way the policy is built. “Fundamentally, it’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut. And it is an extraordinarily heavy-handed intervention into a market that is actually working well,” she told the conference. She called the proposal “such a blunt instrument” and said it would go well beyond creating modest downward pressure on prices.
That last point is central to the industry’s argument. Wake warned that the plan, as drafted, would push prices below the long-run marginal cost of developing new gas production. If companies are forced to sell at prices that do not cover the cost of finding and developing new reserves, they will have little reason to invest in future supply. In her words, the policy could “sow the seeds of tomorrow’s market failure.”
There is also a practical problem with the 110 percent oversupply target. The regulator would have to forecast how much gas Australians will actually need years in advance. If that forecast is too high, producers will be forced to flood a market that does not need the extra gas, turning a supply-safety measure into a price-crushing exercise. If the forecast is too low, the reserve would be too small to matter on the coldest days of the year. Industry officials say that sort of central planning is especially difficult in a market where demand has become more sensitive to seasonal weather patterns.
The government has rejected the criticism. Officials argue that gas exporters must be made to supply Australian customers, not merely offer gas to them. In the government’s view, a legal obligation is essential because export-oriented producers may otherwise neglect domestic contracts during periods of high global prices. A mandatory reservation would make the East Coast market a fixed destination for a defined share of production.
Supporters of the policy also point to the basic structure of Australia’s gas industry. Australia is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters and ships more gas overseas than it consumes at home. But the largest reserves are concentrated in the northwest of the continent, far from the more populous southeast, where most of the demand is located. The eastern LNG projects have developed rapidly over the past decade, and the same basins that feed them also supply the domestic market. The government says that creates an inherent conflict of interest that only a statutory reserve can resolve.
The Australian debate is also being watched from Washington. The United States has reviewed LNG export authorizations carefully in recent years, but it has not tried to force exporters to reserve an explicit percentage of production for domestic use. If Australia’s experiment works, it could encourage other governments to consider similar intervention in gas markets. If it fails, as Shell predicts, it will become a case study in the hazards of pricing energy by administrative design rather than by supply and demand.
The political timing makes the bill difficult to ignore. Australia’s energy prices have eased from the highs triggered by the global energy crisis, but bills are still a major burden for households and manufacturers. The federal government faces pressure to show that it can lower living costs without resorting to huge subsidy programs. A gas reservation law gives the government a clear narrative: Australian gas must be available to Australians first.
Origin Energy and Santos have also voiced reservations about the policy, though less publicly than Shell. The draft rules are still open to change, and the bill will face committee review before it comes to a vote. The government may be forced to adjust the maximum reservation level, the way the 110 percent benchmark is calculated, or the exemptions available to projects with existing international supply contracts.
Wake made clear that Shell would continue to engage with the government, but her language was far from diplomatic. The architecture of the policy, she said, “is to drive prices below the long-run marginal cost of bringing new production out.” The real danger, she added, is not a temporary dip in prices but a delayed supply response that leaves Australia with less gas than it needs when demand returns. In her view, the road to a reliable domestic gas market is not paved with mandated oversupply.
The coming weeks will determine whether the government takes those warnings seriously. If Parliament passes a softened bill, the plan may survive with less harm to investment. If the current draft becomes law untouched, the industry’s warning will be put to a live test. Australia may end up with cheaper gas in the short term — and much less of it later.
