[_s]

My understanding is that it’s a bit of both.

The best analogy for USA equivalent is that imagine Alaska is where we have a bunch of oil / gas, but we need it in New York and Miami.

We can’t lay pipes because of terrain / distance, and the road infrastructure is pretty spotty too.

The companies extracting / producing / selling the oil/gas off in Alaska are private and separate to the companies wanting to buy it in NYC or Miami. There’s minimal government oversight.

It might work out cheaper for the companies to buy gas coming from eg Europe or Canada or Mexico for NYC/Miami vs Alaska (in our instance it would be SE Asia / China). Or from Alaska.

[pkaye]

California actually has to import oil from Canada, Ecuador and a a few other countries. The local production is insufficient for the population level plus since the 70s voters wouldn't allow much oil exploration. Washington and Oregon are able to get it from Canada however.

[dylan604]

> plus since the 70s voters wouldn't allow much oil exploration

and their beaches are national treasures compared to Texas where they subscribed to the "drill baby drill" mantra and "fuck those beaches. it's just sand" mantra. it is funny comparing California beaches where they did allow offshore drilling for a side-by-side comparison of how they are affected. Take Seal Beach with all of the tarballs vs something nearby like Santa Monica.

[ars]

I don't have specific information about Seal Beach, but Tar Balls are completely natural and are not [necessarily] caused by drilling.

The are decomposed by a number of bacteria, and unless you happen to know of a spill nearby are not an indicator of a problem. In fact drilling for the oil can reduce them by reducing the pressure that would otherwise squeeze them out.

[dylan604]

> USA equivalent

The US would just lay pipe through the lands of the native peoples and screw the expense or the impact on those lands. The fact Australia is an island makes shipping a very enticing option.

[FireBeyond]

Ex-Australian living in the US:

In this case, it wouldn't.

The longest gas pipeline in the world is the PetroChina. The main part of that is around 4,000km (2,500mi) long, BUT passes through 66 cities, and includes 8 branches.

A pipeline from West to East in Australia would be 4,000km long in a perfectly straight line, but have near no branches, and pass through no infrastructure at all for well over 3,500km of it. You're talking areas that are so remote that you need fixed wing aircraft for maintenance because helicopters don't have range, areas that even vehicles will have to carry extended fuel tanks because the nearest fuel supply might be 1,000 miles away, with little to no water supplies.

It could take days or more to get to the pipe for inspection, security would be non-existent.

And all this in a climate that is ... unforgiving. One of the nearby towns to where such a pipeline is situated has the following factoids:

At least one month a year where the mean maximum temperature is 107F.

Holds a record of 160 consecutive days above 100F.

Regularly records 110F+, with record temperatures approaching 120F.

It's highly suspected that the uninhabited areas along that route would exceed those temperatures. Multiple towns in the vicinity have exceeded 120F in the shade on multiple occasions.

The railroad nearby holds the world record for the straightest section of train track: 500mi+ dead straight (though not dead level).

Shipping is the only way to go, really.