The government has quietly chosen a preferred provider for its liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki - though it is yet to sign a contract.
The company's identity remains under wraps, along with initial safety evaluations carried out as part of the procurement process.
Opponents of the project have now renewed their calls for those safety evaluations to be shared with the local community.
The latest information was not formally announced, but instead included in updated information on the ministry's website.
Last month, the government said it would delay a contract until after the election, walking back a suggestion from Energy Minister Simeon Brown that one could still be signed during the campaign.
MBIE confirmed to RNZ that the government had instructed it to progress discussions with one preferred provider.
"While a final contract won't be signed before the election, work continues at pace."
MBIE's updated information also confirmed the provider's proposal was for a floating storage and regasification unit - essentially a large tanker that would be moored alongside the main breakwater at Port Taranaki.
It would receive shipments of super-cooled LNG and convert it back to gas for ordinary use.
Lawyers for Climate Action, which is among community and climate groups opposing the project, said it was surprised by the decision to confirm a preferred provider.
The Auditor-General had only just declined the group's request to investigate the project, saying in a letter that an inquiry was premature given the government "is yet to decide the approach it will take and select a provider".
Lawyers for Climate Action spokesperson Laura Mackay said the latest development was "completely out of step" with that.
"The letter said that based on the Auditor-General's discussions with MBIE, work is still underway to review the financial, economic and strategic case for the LNG fuel solution and to identify a preferred model or provider," she said.
"Under a week later, [MBIE] have identified a preferred supplier despite apparently having not answered fundamental questions like, who will bear the costs? What are the implications for electricity prices and what are the risks?"
The ministry said work on the case for LNG was continuing.
"The energy system is dynamic, and MBIE will continue to update its assessments with latest developments for an informed investment decision."
Mackay said the latest news underscored her concerns about the transparency of the project.
"What I'm surprised about is that the government seems to be continuing to progress this project at speed while they're also simultaneously refusing to disclose information or engage with the local community about their concerns," Mackay said.
That included safety concerns, she said.
In its liquid form, LNG is non-flammable and non-explosive.
However, in the event of a leak, it quickly returns to gas and can form a vapour cloud that can ignite or explode at high concentrations - a rare but potentially serious outcome.
LNG is widely used around the world, but facilities operate with exclusion zones.
Documents released under the Official Information Act by Maritime New Zealand - which was consulted by MBIE - explained the risks.
"This makes its presence undesirable in a port or near any built up areas," an official wrote in an email to Maritime NZ's deputy director.
"Safety distances and exclusion zones have to be large."
A floating production storage and offloading facility - which generally sit further out to sea - was therefore "likely the best arrangement, with the LNG tanker safely offshore away from built up areas and infrastructure", the official wrote.
The two providers shortlisted for the project had to submit initial safety evaluations as part of the procurement process, but requests for those through the Official Information Act had been declined, Mackay said.
In a written response, MBIE said it was working with an external engineering firm to review proposals for safety and feasibility.
"Safety is an absolute bottom line."
Asked about Maritime New Zealand's suggestion that a facility would best be located offshore, the ministry replied: "Of all the proposals submitted in response to MBIE's ROI, in-port options at Port Taranaki were found to be the most practical, safe and reliable."
On its website, the ministry said it "will not recommend that the government signs a contract for an import facility we or our external engineers have any safety concerns about".
Even if a contract was signed, the facility could not go ahead unless WorkSafe accepted a full safety case, it said.
The government has said it would need to fast-track the consenting process for the facility in time to get it up and running for winter 2028.
Cabinet documents have suggested it may need bespoke legislation that bypasses even the government's own Fast-track Approvals Act.
Information on MBIE's website explains that local councils, iwi, the Department of Conservation, Heritage New Zealand and Port Taranaki would still be consulted about the environmental impacts of the proposal.
"MBIE is not seeking comments from these groups on whether the LNG facility should proceed. This is a matter for the government."
In a further response to RNZ, it said the parliamentary process "will provide for broader public input".
RNZ's request to Energy Minister Simeon Brown's office for comment was acknowledged but a response was not provided before this story was published.
