The Press THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1970. Fuel For Generating, At New Plymouth

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32302, 21 May 1970, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1970. Fuel For Generating, At New Plymouth

Though disappointing to West Coast coalmining interests, the Government’s decision to exclude coal from the possible fuels for the power-generating station at New Plymouth is well justified. The West Coast was encouraged by the former Minister of Mines, Mr Shand, to believe that up to 500,000 tons of Buller coal a year might be used in the New Plymouth station. The present Minister of Electricity, Mr Allen, explains that Mr Shand had in mind the possibility of firing the station in its early years on a combination of coal and gas, the station later going to coal-firing alone, when the gas could be piped to the Auckland area to supply an electricity generating station there. This rather laboured compromise Is hardly defensible in the light of new information about the size of the Maui offshore gasfield, which could fuel several generating stations of the size Of the New Plymouth station.

If this rich field is to be developed—at huge capital cost —the operating company will need to be assured of a return on its investment of probably some millions of dollars within a reasonable time. Fuelling the New Plymouth station exclusively with gas is simply a means of putting the product of the field to economic use as quickly as possible. The Maui gasfield will, of course, benefit New Zealand's economy in other wavs. A generating station at New Plymouth would not alone justify the capital expenditure involved in developing the field and piping the gas ashore. Something much bigger is obviously hoped for—probably the export of natural gas in liquified form.

Mr Allen explains that it is not yet certain that Maui gas wiH be available for the New Plymouth station: it might yet be necessary to use fuel oil, which would have much the same financial and operational advantages over indigenous coal. There is little difference between a station designed for natural gas and one for oil, but vast differences between a station burning these fuels and a coalburning station, with all its auxiliaries. Mr Allen explains that if planning, procurement, and construction of a coal-burning station are allowed to go any further, commitment to coal will be virtually irreversible and the economic advantages of using natural gas will have been surrendered. Clearly the Government’s decision has been a particularly difficult one to make. It has been made only after exhaustive study and after taking full account of the potentialities of industries based on natural gas. The Minister of Mines, Mr Shelton, offers some solace to the people interested in the Buller coalfield. Certainly the prospects of an export trade in coal are improved now that Buller coal is not to be reserved for the New Plymouth station. The main obstacle is the difficulty of loading large ships on the West Coast at reasonable cost. It would be a happy outcome indeed if the extensive investigation that Mr Shelton mentions should resolve this problem.