Politics

2019 election manifesto review

pnr 190916 slider Ros Wills

Preston New Road, 16 September 2019. Photo: Ros Wills

DrillOrDrop’s summary of the election manifesto commitments on fracking and onshore oil and gas. We’ll update this post with each new manifesto.


SNP – “no support for fracking and no new fracking licences”

SNP manifesto

27 November 2019

Key points

  • No support for unconventional oil and gas in Scotland and no new licences for fracking or coal bed methane
  • Ring fence oil and gas receipts in a net zero fund to invest in renewable energy and carbon capture and storage
  • Net zero carbon emissions by 2040 and net zero of all emissions by 2045

The Scottish National Party manifesto restated the party’s policy of no support for unconventional oil and gas and fracking in Scotland. It said:

“This means the Scottish Government will not issue licences for new unconventional oil and gas development, and that Scotland’s planning framework will not support development using unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques, including coal bed methane and hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as ‘fracking’.”

The SNP manifesto called for a net zero fund to ring-fence oil and gas revenues, estimated at £85bn in the five years to 2023-4. This fund, the SNP said, would help to fund energy transition through investment in renewable energy, electric vehicles and carbon capture utilisation and storage.

The manifesto said 12% of the fund, at least £1bn over five years, would help diversify economies of oil hubs like Aberdeen, Falkirk and Shetland.

The SNP said it would press the UK government to accelerate action to decarbonise the gas grid and ensure that all new homes from 2024 must use renewable or low carbon heat.

The UK government should “properly support” the renewables industry or devole power to Scotland, the manifesto said. It opposed new nuclear power plants  and proposed reform of UK support for renewables. Onshore wind and solar should be allowed to bid for the UK’s main renewables support mechanism.

The SNP also proposed a green energy deal to give green energy projects long-term certainty. It would also provide adequate funding for a wave and tidal energy strategy. The manifesto promised to press the Conservatives to end plans to increase VAT on home solar.

On climate change action, the party said it would demand the UK met Scottish targets of a 75% reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2040.

The SNP said it would also press for accelerated deployment of fully operational carbon capture utilisation and storage facilities in Scotland.

SNP manifesto


Conservatives – “no support for fracking unless science shows categorically it can be done safely”

24 November 2019

Key points

  • No support for fracking
  • Support for gas for hydrogen production
  • Commitment to protect and enhance the green belt and action against encampments
191124 Boris Johnson manifesto Conservative Party

Boris Johnson. Photo: Conservative Party

The Conservative manifesto restated the moratorium on fracking in England, announced by the government with immediate effect earlier this month. It added:

“We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”

The manifesto also confirmed the previous government announcement against changing the planning system for shale gas schemes, proposed in the 2017 Conservative manifesto.

There was no specific reference to onshore oil and gas or other forms of unconventional extraction. But the manifesto did say:

“We will support gas for hydrogen production, and nuclear energy, including fusion, as important parts of the energy system, alongside increasing our commitment to renewables.”

The manifesto promised to “protest and enhance the Green Belt”, the location of several onshore oil and gas planning plans and applications.

It also said it would “lead the global fight against climate change by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”

The document said:

“We will use our position hosting the UN Climate Change Summit in Glasgow in 2020 to ask our global partners to match our ambition.”

The first budget would “prioritise the environment”, the Conservatives said, with investment in research and development, decarbonisation, new flood defences (£4bn over “coming years”), electric vehicle infrastructure and clean energy.

The party committed to:

  • Establish a £500m blue planet fund to “help protect our oceans from plastic pollution, warming sea temperatures and overfishing”
  • Lower energy bills by investing £9.6bn in energy efficiency for homes, schools and hospitals.First budget will
  • Invest £800m in the first fully deployed carbon capture storage cluster by the mid-2020s
  • Invest £500m to help energy-intensive industries move to low-carbon technologies

There were also commitments to support clean transport, consult on phasing out new conventional petrol and diesel cars, ban export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, and work with market to deliver two million new jobs in “clean growth”.

The party promised new powers that could be used against protest, protection and monitoring camps. The manifesto said:

“We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence, and we will also give councils greater powers within the planning system.”

Conservative Party manifesto


 

170707 pnr Cheryl Atkinson2

Photo: Cheryl Atkinson


plaid cymru logoPlaid Cymru – “Carbon and single use plastic free by 2030”

22 November 2019

Plaid Cymru promised to:

“seek a complete ban on fracking and new open cast coal mines”.

Wales would make the transition to 100% self-sufficient in renewable energy by 2030, the manifesto said.

The party committed to tidal lagoons for Swansea, Cardiff and Colwyn Bays, a wind farm off Ynys Mon and an Usk barrage. There would also be a network of local energy grids for Wales and changes to planning legislation to fast-track community-owned energy schemes.

A national energy agency, Ynni Cymru, would be charged with realising Wales’s green energy potential. The party promised to oppose the development of new sites for nuclear power stations.

The manifesto also promised a “Welsh green jobs revolution”:

“Create tens of thousands of new jobs throughout Wales by kick-starting a multi-billion investment programme in renewable energy, transport infrastructure and digital technology, with the goal of making Wales a carbon and single-use plastic free national by 2030.”

A £5bn greener homes programme would improve energy efficiency in Welsh homes and reduce fuel poverty, the manifesto said. And an expanded Trans Cymru bus network of high-quality coaches would be powered by renewable energy.

Plaid Cymru manifesto


Brexit Party logoBrexit Party – “zero-rate VAT on fuel bills”

22 November 2019

The Brexit Party’s “contract with the people” had no references to fracking, oil, gas, hydrocarbons, onshore exploration, drilling, climate or greenhouse gases.

On energy, the party committed to zero rate VAT on domestic fuel to reduce energy bills

It also promised to plant “millions of trees to capture CO2” and recycle the UK’s waste, making it illegal to export across the world.

The Brexit Party contract with the people


Labour – “net zero carbon energy within the 2030s”

21 November 2019

Key points

  • Immediate and permanent ban on fracking
  • Nearly 90% of electricity and 50% of heat from renewable and low carbon sources by 2030
  • Windfall tax on oil companies
pnr 190730 Jeremy Corbyn Refracktion1

Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, outside Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site, 30 July 2019. Photo: Refracktion

Labour repeated its opposition to fracking, describing the process, “pushed through” by the Conservatives, as “dangerous”.

The party said:

“We will expand distributed and community energy, and immediately and permanently ban fracking”.

Unlike the Greens, but along with the Lib Dems, the party had no comment on other forms of unconventional or extreme hydrocarbon extraction.

The manifesto also promised:

“a windfall tax on oil companies, so that the companies that knowingly damaged our climate will help cover the costs.”

Labour said it would “put the UK on track” for a net-zero carbon energy system within the 2030s. It committed to nearly 90% of electricity and 50% of heat from renewable and low-carbon sources by 2030.

The party promised it would build:

  • 7,000 new offshore wind turbines
  • 2,000 new onshore wind turbines
  • Enough solar panels to cover 22,000 football pitches
  • New nuclear power needed for energy security

Labour would also trial tidal energy and invest to reduce the costs of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen production, the manifesto said.

Almost all the UK’s 27 million homes would be upgraded to the highest energy efficiency standards, the party said. It committed to a zero-carbon homes standard for all new homes and a roll-out of heat pumps, solar hot water and hydrogen heating, along with investment in district heat networks.

Labour also promised to expand power storage and invest in enhancements and interconnectors for the national electricity grid.

The manifesto said the party would launch a £400bn national transformation fund, of which £250bn would go to renewable and low carbon energy and transport, as well as biodiversity and environmental restoration. Treasury rules would be rewritten to ensure investments were compatible with climate and environmental targets.

On climate targets, the manifesto said:

“Labour will take full responsibility for our carbon footprint instead of passing the buck.

“We will instruct the Committee on Climate Change to assess the emissions the UK imports as well as those it produces, and recommend policies to tackle them, including making UK industry the greenest in the world.”

On health, the manifesto promised the NHS would become a net-zero carbon service. This would be achieved by:

  • NHS Forest of one million trees
  • More efficient heating and insulation systems
  • Greater reliance on renewable energy, including more solar panels
  • Transition to electric paramedic vehicles, NHS fleet cars and hybrid ambulances

On transport, the manifesto promised a review of public expenditure to ensure it promoted environmental sustainability and contributed to decarbonisation. Among the commitments were:

  • Free bus travel for under 25s where councils take control of buses
  • Reinstate 3,000 routes that have been cut
  • Bring railways back into public ownership
  • Promote the use of rail freight
  • Complete HS2 to Scotland
  • Air quality, noise pollution and climate tests for airport expansion

Labour manifesto (pdf)


Yorkshire Party – “total regional ban on fracking”

21 November 2019

Yorkshire Party logo

The Yorkshire Party promises net zero carbon emissions across Yorkshire by 2030. This would, the party said, be achieved by:

  • Region-wide, total, ban on fracking
  • Offset legacy CO2 emissions by planting six million trees
  • Decarbonise heat and transport by investing in hydrogen and offshore wind

The party also committed to building 23,000 new energy-efficient homes every year for the next 20 years, of which 8,000 would be available at social rent levels.

191121 Yorkshire Party manifesto


Liberal Democrats – “only party with radical, credible plan to tackle climate emergency”

20 November 2019

Key points

  • Ban fracking for good
  • Generate 80% of electricity by renewables by 2030
  • End fossil fuel subsidies by 2025
191120 Lib Dem manifesto image

Image: Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems today pledged to ban “fracking for good”

The party’s manifesto promised a ban

“because of its negative impacts on climate change, the energy mix and the local environment”.

But unlike the Greens, it did not have proposals for any other form of unconventional fossil fuel extraction.

The Lib Dem manifesto said it was:

“the only party with a radical, credible and detailed plan to tackle the climate emergency as soon as possible”.

It promised a 10-year “emergency programme to cut greenhouse gas emissions substantially straightaway and phase out emissions from the remaining hard-to-treat sectors by 2045.

This would be achieved by:

  • Emergency programme to insulate all Britain’s homes by 2030
  • 80% of UK electricity generated from renewables by 2030
  • Legally-binding target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2045

The manifesto said all UK registered and stock-market listed companies would be required to set climate change targets consistent with the Paris Agreement and report on their implementation. Financial services would be regulated to encouraged green investments.

The Lib Dems said they would establish a Department for Climate Change and Natural Resources and coordinate government-wide action for a zero-carbon economy under a cabinet-level minister.

Other initiatives included:

  • UK and local citizens’ climate assemblies on the climate emergency
  • Requirement on local authorities to produce zero-carbon strategy
  • Create an Office of Environmental Protection independent of government with powers to enforce compliance with climate and environmental targets
  • Increase government spending on climate and environmental objectives to reach 5% in five years
  • Create a new Green Investment Bank to support investment in zero carbon technology
  • End fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 in line with G7 pledge

On electricity generation, the manifesto promised £12bn over five years to accelerate deployment of renewable power. The party would remove Conservative restrictions on wind and solar and build more interconnectors. All new homes would be fitted with solar panels and investment wold be supported in tidal and wave energy, storage, demand response, smart grids and hydrogen technologies.

On housing, the manifesto said the Lib Dems would cut energy bills, end fuel poverty by 2025 and reduce emissions from buildings. Other proposals included reduction in VAT on home insulation and a graduation on stamp duty by the energy rating of a property. All new homes must be built to a zero-carbon standard by 2021.

On industry, the Lib Dems promised to reduce emissions by supporting carbon capture and storage and new low-carbon processes for cement and steel production. The party said it would end support from UK Export Finance for fossil fuel-related activities.

Non-recyclable single-use plastics would be banned and replaced with affordable alternatives. The party said it aimed for complete elimination in three years and an end to plastic waste exports by 2030.

Lib Dem manifesto (pdf)


Green Party – “stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible”

19 November 2019

Key points

  • Ban fracking and other unconventional fossil fuel extraction 
  • Remove subsidies for oil and gas
  • Apply carbon tax to imports and domestic production of fossil fuels
pnr 180614 Jonathan Bartley Tina Rotheryedit

Jonathan Bartley outside Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site, 14 June 2018. Photo: Tina Rothery

As expected, the Green Party restated its commitment to oppose fracking. The party’s Green New Deal for energy said it would:

“Ban fracking, and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel extraction, now and forever.”

The party also said it would:

  • Remove subsides to oil and gas
  • Apply a progressively increasing carbon tax on all fossil fuel imports and domestic extraction based on greenhouse gas emissions produced when fuel is burnt.

The tax would make coal, oil and gas financial unviable within a decade, the party said.

The manifesto said the 2019 election was voters’ chance to put the climate emergency at the top of the political agenda. The aim was to reduce UK carbon emissions to net zero by 2030:

“The key to reducing our impact on the climate is to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

It said the UK had abundant wind, tides, sun and rivers to be self-sufficient in energy.

“It’s time for investment to unleash this potential and enable us leave oil and gas in the ground.

“With our renewable energy supply unlocked, we can hugely reduce fossil fuel use in our energy system and with it our reliance on nuclear power.”

The Green Party said its New Deal would also:

  • Enable communities to develop their own renewable energy projects
  • Introduce new support and incentives to accelerate wind energy development to produce 70% of UK electricity by 2030
  • Introduce new support for other renewable energies to provide the remaining 30%.
  • Transform the planning system to support a massive increase in wind and other renewables
  • Open up more coastal water for offshore wind and marine energy
  • Connect UK electricity supply more closely to European neighbours to provide wider supply when needed and exports during a surplus
  • Improve the efficiency and capacity of the electricity grid
  • Expand capacity for short-term electricity storage
  • Prohibit construction of nuclear power stations
  • Encourage greater energy efficiency

On housing, the Green Party said it would

“Reduce the use of natural gas for heating homes through a programme, to replace polluting boilers with renewable heat from heat pumps, and solar thermal, geothermal, biomass and stored heat technologies.”

Other measures included energy efficiency improvements in homes, insulation of non-domestic buildings, roll-out of solar panels and incentivise renovation and improvement of existing buildings, rather than new build.

In industry, the party said it would prepare for a rapid decommissioning of North Sea oil rigs.

Green Party manifesto (pdf)


50 replies »

  1. “In industry, the party said it would prepare for a rapid decommissioning of North Sea oil rigs.”

    What do they mean by this? Do they plan on shutting down all our (Scotland’s) North Sea Oil and Gas production if they get elected? Of course they will not get elected but it would be interesting to know what they propose?

  2. If we attempt to switch to renewables at the pace advocated by Greens our economy & competitiveness will suffer while even complete success will make not a jot of difference to world climate.
    Ultimately the world will only switch to a meaningful extent when green energy is genuinely, not artificially, cheaper than fossil fuels.
    Just a fraction of the cost of over enthusiastic switching could provide massive funding for research into truly viable renewables. Let us support that.
    Wrecking our economy to make a pointless gesture will achieve nothing & do nothing to encourage the world’s worst polluters to follow our example.
    The net result of Green Policies will be a political backlash against extremes but also against slower but realistic progress.
    If you really care about world climate please do not vote Green. One Green MP is too many!

      • “Net Zero? As fast and effectively”
        What are the benefits to getting Net Zero as fast and effectively as possible? It has taken decades of government subsidies and hard cash to make renewable efficiencies to complement energy! Oil and Gas is here to stay, we cannot as the greens say leave it in the ground!
        It is all about using the most convenient energy at the lowest cost, without impacting the climate…. but some on here have opposed fracking, Gas when produced has the lowest form of FF emissions on energy & sustainably between now to 2050, this need for energy is not going away! The wind turbines of today only have an efficiency of 20 years before being overhauled, what is the new renewable after these need to be decommissioned and at who’s cost?!?

        • Eli you are correct that the world will require fossil fuel energy for some time but the level of demand is and will decline. This is likely to be quicker in the developed countries like the U.K. Majors like BP have acknowledged that they have stranded assets. Public opinion, market demand, changing technologies all mean that the demand and use of fossil fuels will continue to decline. Many economists and politicians consider it is more advantageous to be at the forefront of the inevitable change as this provides profitable skills and expertise that can be exported and creates sustainable jobs. So BP and others have already acknowledged the reality that fossil fuels will be left in the ground,

          • KatT

            Here are the highlights of BP’s 2019 energy outlook.

            Significant levels of continued investment in new oil will be required to meet oil demand in 2040. 

            Demand for oil grows in the first half of the Outlook period before gradually plateauing, while global coal consumption remains broadly flat.

            85% of the growth in energy supply is generated through renewable energy and natural gas.

            Global carbon emissions continue to rise, signalling the need for a comprehensive set of policy measures to achieve a substantial reduction in carbon emissions. 

        • KatT

          A significant part of the UK fossil fuel subsidies identified by the commission is the 5% rate of VAT on domestic gas and electricity, cut from the standard 20%. This applies to all sources of gas and electricity including renewable.

      • Not sure about Rod, but my idea would be to ban 3 litre BMW diesels within the UK immediately.

        In terms of voting to have any impact upon net zero, perhaps vote for Greta to take charge of China! Oops, not possible, so net zero will be somewhat delayed reaction.

        December 12th will show in UK a big support for green issues, but a small support for the Greens. The UK voters can, and do, differentiate between the two.

  3. OOH-somebody upset you, delayed?

    In terms of my comment about BMWs: it would save utilisation of brown filthy coal in Germany, and the importation of so much diesel into the UK removing tax from UK to other countries that could be utilised for a nice forest somewhere in UK. Would also prevent costly controls to keep such anti social chariots away from places like Bristol or pollution of the N.Sea when they sink in transit.

    A brain and an interest would seem to be a good reason. Some of us demonstrate that, delayed, others just demonstrate.

    • Oh that will be the “us” you get so over-excited about when somebody else uses it will it Martian. 😂

      Some of you just let Collywibble spew out incontinently – if only we could somehow harness all that wasted energy!

      • Even the Guardian is “creeping out to vent etc.”:

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/fossil-fuel-production-on-track-for-double-the-safe-climate-limit

        “The analysis is based on the published national plans of eight key producers: Australia, Canada, Russia, US, China, India, Indonesia and Norway, which account for 60% of global fossil fuel production. The plans of other big producers, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, are not publicly available. The researchers assumed these nations would follow similar paths as the eight countries that were covered.”

        Perhaps [edited by moderator] efforts to tackle this problem need to be made overseas?

        • That dammed Guardian again:

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity

          “China’s growing appetite for new coal-fired power stations has outstripped plant closures in the rest of the world since the start of last year, data shows.

          Elsewhere countries reduced their capacity by 8GW in the 18 months to June because old plants were retired faster than new ones were built. But over the same period China increased its capacity by 42.9GW despite a global move towards cleaner energy sources and a pledge to limit the use of coal.

          Christine Shearer, an analyst at the NGO Global Energy Monitor, said: “China’s proposed coal expansion is so far out of alignment with the Paris agreement that it would put the necessary reductions in coal power out of reach, even if every other country were to completely eliminate its coal fleet.”

          Perhaps our Political Parties should be adressing these issues overseas and ER should be protesting in China?

  4. Agree, Martin, Big cars are not essentials & should be heavily taxed. Just the sort of slow & stead approach which need not wreck the economy. Another example would be to tax domestic energy OVER the realistic requirements for a modest dwelling. Would encourage insulation without burdening those less able to shoulder increased expenditure.
    Sadly steady & sensible policies are of no interest to Greens, anti-frackers, climate emergency rioters etc.
    Good idea to send Greta to China. She would get sent off for “re-education”. Better still if the Green mobs go with her!

    • Actually Rod I would also agree that government direction is the only realistic way we are going to achieve the systemic level of change that is required. Taxing high energy use would also be sensible. Why do you suppose that policies like that are of no interest to ” Greens, anti-frackers, climate emergency rioters etc”? You wouldn’t perhaps be a bit prejudiced in your opinions would you?

      Ironically the Conservatives incentivised diesel cars and disincentivised solar and wind, CCS etc etc etc. We have a long way to go to turn HMS UK back to the right course. It needs sensible strategic and coherent policy making which recognises the fact that we can’t just flick a switch to make things happen. Having read the Green Party manifesto I’d be interested to know the bits that you take particular issue with. It’s only 90 pages of large well-spaced type so it won’t take you long. Who knows we may even agree on some of your opinions!

      • There you go, delayed/premature.

        1+1=US!!

        Perhaps you missed the maths. when you were studying for A level in English Emojis?

        • Actually no Martian and I have been looking at kolmogoroff-smirnov tests for assessing the validity of forecasts only today. It’s a good job one of us isn’t just a one trick pony isn’t it? 😘

          If only *you* had listened in your English classes. (I am assuming from your output that they didn’t even offer Logic as a subject)

      • Thanks, Refracktion, (20/11) I have read the Green Manifesto. Lovely people with lovely ideas, some quite good, but overall just daft.
        To repeat; * rushing to decarbonise UK far ahead of the rest of the world is pointless self-flagellation.
        *“investing” in noncompetitive renewables is the economy of smashing windows to make work for glaziers,—– & when the glaziers are to be paid with borrowed money we are well into cuckoo cloud land.
        *No acceptance of the vast loss of tax revenue now generated by oil & gas if tax-subsidised renewables were to take over.
        On a positive note we could try to join with other concerned nations in applying carrot & stick to the countries planning 500 NEW coal fired power plants to encouraging them to switch to oil & gas. That would REALLY contribute to reducing world emissions. Greens, of course, would want them to use windmills instead—–& they would laugh.
        There are many other practical steps to encourage realistic progress.
        The Green plan of unrestrained borrowing would result in a run on the pound, a surge in borrowing costs, serious recession & a back-lash against sensible & realistic climate policies.
        Note that ALL parties propose irresponsible borrowing—-the Greens are just the most irresponsible.
        One Green MP is too many!

  5. What an interesting life you lead reaction! All that knowledge required to take photos of ladies undies, and work out where you can drive your car without paying a penalty.

    Yesterday for me was mainly taken up with my recycling, plus a bit as Eddy Stone to shed some light through the fog generated by others. Mind you, I did manage to add a few hours watching the Impeachment Circus. The martin collyer test for the validity of forecasts indicates:

    Four More Years!

    Good for energy prices, may be not so good in some other respects. No vodka required for that forecast.

    • Honestly Martin. Why do you keep wasting everyone’s time with these childish posts?

      I mean , I could reply and make you look stupid again but really you are getting far too tedious. I’m struggling to recall the last time one of your posts contained any relevant or thought provoking content, or actually addressed an issue being discussed.

      Most of our “contributions” here seem to be just childish insults lobbed at other posters or Jeremy Clarkson level jibes about Greta Thunberg. I’m sure you can do better than that. Maybe you should try. Even my patience is running out and I actually quite enjoy schooling you.

  6. Really reaction. So, more space is needed for your intelligent use of Emojis and declaration of your studies??

    Interesting that my latest comment stopped your childish game of name adjustment. Yes, school ground, but not schooling.

    Sorry, but if these are your ideas of thought provoking or relevant, I will stick with my approach. I know you find it tedious that this is not a blog where your view is the view. This is not a venue where you can post without being challenged. Tedious, I know, when you have to post accurately rather than claim someone has stated something they have not to further your argument. I wonder why you need to question “our” contributions. I had certainly already sussed what you seem guilty and sensitive about. A Freudian slip?

    • I probably couldn’t have found a better example of the point I was making if I’d wasted 5 minutes on it Martin. I think the fact that you call me “Reaction” above and next sentence mention “your childish game of name adjustment”. It doesn’t bother me , but it does rather show the childish level you clearly can’t rise above.

      Challenge is great. This tedious drip drip drip of irrelevance from you is not. It is boring.It would not be so bad if you were even half as amusing as you clearly think you are. I can own you every time, but honestly Martin – what is the point? Grow up. Get a life. Maybe contribute something thoughtful for a change? You know it makes sense.

  7. Something thoughtful?

    You need a more efficient little helper to advise you of your errors! Almost an hour is showing a distinct lack of awareness. Your new helper could also remind you about who started the childishness. Some then just decided to join in to be polite.

    Something even more thoughtful??

    Perhaps the Jacks could find the comments from Dr. Fiona Hill from yesterday, regarding US fracking and Putin’s statements? Then both of you may identify a bit more relevance to what I have posted, and it may make some a bit more careful about following a trail of irrelevance that has already been identified by “experts” as not only being just that, but a trail for the purpose of planting fake news. I suspect others are already on that page.

    “I can own you”!!

    Oh really! Not a chance, John, but if it makes you happy, and that seems to be required-“fill yer boots”. (English language, at its best.)

    Something more relevant?

    I will await the Tories manifesto, before I bother to read. It is the only one that stands a chance of a majority in Parliament, and no manifestos are delivered without a majority to deliver them. Don’t need to study too much else in that respect, probability analyses is pretty clear. But, thanks for your efforts Ruth.

  8. Out of the six by-elections yesterday, the Conservatives held one seat, gained another three and their share of the votes increased in five out of the six.
    Labour held one seat, lost one to the Conservatives and their share of the votes decreased in all four of the seats they contested.
    A sign of things to come in December?

    • But the Conservative manifesto isn’t exactly brimming over with support for fracking is it John? There are now a significant number of Conservative MPs opposed to fracking, opposition is no longer restricted to just the other parties. And reaching net zero by 2050 will mean tightening carbon reduction targets, fracking can’t even meet the CCC’s current three tests, let alone when standards get tighter. And then of course there is the simple fact that the industry has no social licence and the public consider fracking the least popular energy source. Public support for fracking is at an all time low and given the earthquakes and moratorium I can’t see that changing. The industry is now under wider public scrutiny and as climate change has gone higher up the political/public agenda, the public will continue to demand further climate change action and will soon cotton on that, despite industry claims, U.K. fracked gas is not good for climate change as it has higher emissions than the bulk of our imported gas i.e. via pipeline from Europe. No doubt pressure will be applied to reduce LNG imports by the public, consumers and environmental groups because of its carbon footprint and as LNG imports are small in comparison this can be achieved. That would leave the U.K. fracking industry completely exposed as the source of gas with the highest emissions and worst impacts. Gas prices are predicted to remain low and gas consumption is falling across Europe. Whether the Conservatives are re elected or not things don’t look good for the fracking industry.

      • “Stranded assets” – this is an odd term. There are many billions of barrels of oil that have been discovered but not produced because it is not economic to produce them. Most oil companies have made discoveries which have not been produced. Simple supply and demand. If lack of supply or increased demand caused the oil price to increase significantly some of this oil would become economic and produced. All oil and gas companies have had, have and will have “stranded assets”. Supply and demand dicate this.

        BP is a good example of a major oil and gas (energy) company getting into renewables:

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/24/solar-farms-keep-uk-lights-on-at-night

        Lightsource BP is of course 43% owned by BP although the Guardian does not note this.

        https://www.lightsourcebp.com/uk/

        “Lightsource BP currently has 2GW of solar under management, and has developed 1.3GW in Europe. Our North American pipeline includes 3GW of assets in development and construction.”

        “Lightsource BP, rebranded from Lightsource Renewable Energy in 2018, is the largest solar developer in Europe, and third largest in the world outside of China. Lightsource BP is a British company with headquarters in London, and offices in San Francisco, Philadelphia, Mumbai, New Delhi, Cairo, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Bath, Belfast and Dublin.”

        Perhaps the RSC & British Museum are aware of this?

        Conventional hydraulic fracturing is not banned / under the moratorium. High volume hydraulic fracturing of shale is currently stopped due to the moratorium only. Shale in the UK is probably finished unless INEOS demonstrate that it can be produced within the TLS.

        • “Shale in the UK is probably finished unless INEOS demonstrate that it can be produced within the TLS”

          Serious question Paul – how do you think they can do that without fracking?

          • If the shale is sandy enough the vertical well may flow without stimuation. And the moratorium may well be lifted on a case by case basis. If INEOS can demonstrate that they would stay in the TLS after they have the initial well results then why wouldn’t they get a permit? After the election of course and assuming a Conservative victory…. I doubt there will ever be a permit issued in the Fylde again though as Cuadrilla has demonstrated that they cannot stay within the TLS. Many shale wells around the world do not have seismicity problems during / after hydraulic fracturing. Geology and monitoring….And there are always mini fracks….

            The big question is if INEOS would be prepared to risk a TLS failure and having to give up after a fairly significant financial outlay.

            • Sorry I don’t follow Paul.

              How can they demonstrate that they would stay in the TLS by stimulating “conventionally” and thus prove that fracking (stimulating “unconventionally”) is safe. There seems to be a logical disconnect there, unless you are saying that the Tory manifesto is lying when it says “We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely”

              As regards their “fairly significant financial outlay” I’d say that’s toast already, but I suppose I can see your logic that if they were ever allowed to frack again and breached the TLS then it would be the end without a shadow of a doubt. I just don’t see how they are going to be able to prove that something they are not allowed to do without first proving it is safe, is safe.

              • Well, some of us can follow.

                Question:
                How does the science show categorically that it can be done safely? (Or not.)

                Ermm-perhaps it has to be scientifically tested to do that?

                Maybe the “unless” is a clue.

                Although, of course, the alternative is UK takes USA fracked gas and oil as part of a Trade Deal, and by so doing, remove at least one Democratic candidate..

                • Ok Martin I’ll bite.

                  Please explain the hypothetical process by which you think they will be able to “scientifically test” “the science” to “show categorically that it can be done safely”

                • No idea, John, but I suspect there is a reason the “unless” is within the sentence-so, I suspect others who are better informed than you or I may have a process in mind. Speculative, I recognise, but then most around UK fracking is.

                  Words have a meaning (usually) whilst some can get confused with that. It is pretty common. I see today the media has become very confused with “more” nurses and “new” nurses. No need to, all pretty simple and something I just happened to note as I had an appointment with a nurse (be nice now!) I also note some have a problem with new hospitals and hospital upgrades, but again, pretty simple.

              • I assume you follow the sandy bit John? Drill the well, flow test it without stimulation, see if it flows. Then conduct a 10,000m3 hydraulic fracture if INEOS can demonstrate that they can frack the well within the seismicity guidelines of the TLS by demonstrating appropriate geomechanical analysis of the subject shales. Moratorium on case by case basis using science.

                Small frack / big frack are pretty similar other than the higher volumes extend the frack further. The mechanical properties of the rocks are the same, the equipment is the same.

                “Based on these, the OGA believes that further detailed geomechanical analysis would be needed before we could evaluate with confidence whether hydraulic fracturing could resume in the Fylde, or elsewhere, consistent with the Government’s policy aims.”

                “The 2015 Infrastructure Act introduced a new definition, based on volume of fluid. To be classed as associated hydraulic fracturing, the operation must use 1,000m3 of fluid per frack stage or 10,000m3 per well.

                If the moratorium applied only to associated hydraulic fracturing, it would not cover oil and gas operations using smaller volumes of fluid.”

                Not my words……

                It appears (from DOD) that INEOS are proceeding with one of their wells so they must be fairly confident that drilling and testing the well will provide information to help them decide on any further investment.

                If each geological area is different, which of course it is, then why not drill and frack a well in each area and where the TLS is breached that is the end of it for that particular area / basin. Sir Jim is investing in shale in the US now so perhaps he is thinking of giving up here. But why start site construction?

                • I should also have added that in a vertical well single stage <1,000m3 hydraulic fracture into a sandy sweet spot should be adquate to establish if there is potential commerciality or not.

                • Ah, so you think they will try to use the definition of associated HF to get round the moratorium in order to be able to provide evidence that actual HF is safe? I suppose they could try but that kind of presupposes that they can prove there is no link between the volumes injected and the level of seismic activity otherwise they are only proving that “not fracking” fracking is OK aren’t they? Or am I missing something?

                  I have no idea why Monaco Jim is wasting money on site construction. Maybe he’s going to plaster his logo all over it and pretend it’s a new sport? 🙄

                • I think you may find, John,outside of sporting spending, INEOS has a well earned reputation for NOT investing foolishly, and may have invested where others see risks but INEOS have seen rewards.

                  Any company can still make a poor decision even with this platform, but don’t rely upon it may be the wise money.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.