The Australian owner of Cuadrilla says it is carrying out a review of the company’s costs following the fracking moratorium.
A J Lucas acquired Riverstone’s shareholding in Cuadrilla in February 2020, taking its interest to 93%.
In a trading update, A J Lucas (AJL) said:
“AJL has undertaken a detailed review of the carrying costs of the UK shale gas explorer.
“While this remains ongoing, AJL confirms significant progress has been made in rightsizing the business to meet the hiatus in 2020 operations following the initiation of a moratorium in the UK on hydraulic fracturing.”
DrillOrDrop reported in December 2019 that key staff were leaving Cuadrilla as the company scaled down the fracking site at Preston New Road near Blackpool.
At least 10 had gone in recent months, including the senior geoscientist, financial controller, communications manager, director of public affairs and the executive assistant to the chief executive.
Earth tremors induced by fracking at Preston New Road led to the government moratorium on fracking in November 2019.
Earlier this year, Cuadrilla said it envisaged “limited, if any, operational activities” at the site.
The company predicted a “successful technical resolution” that would allow continued appraisal of UK shale gas.
A J Lucas said in the update it had implemented measures on workforce safety and social distancing for staff to reduce exposure to coronavirus in the UK and Australia. It said:
“Cuadrilla remains focused on working with industry peers and Industry Regulators to provide information to allow the UK Government to lift the moratorium as soon as practical given the constraints initiated to control the COVID-19 pandemic.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
Perhaps they need to diversify into the proven safe technology of 5G?
They need to just pack up and throw in the towel. And whilst I expect the usual rebukes from the same limited number of pro fracking that comment on this forum, the reality is the economics don’t add up, even the US industry is massively in debt, the industry and resource is unproven in the U.K., it is deeply unpopular with the public and has run out of time so far as net zero and carbon reduction targets are concerned. And then of course there is the moratorium.
Quite right KatT,
Cuadrilla, or rather, the Australian company AJLucas as they are now for all intents and purposes, are probably hoping to hang in there in the vain hope that they will get bailed out by the tax payer, a’ la Trump? Then run away and let the tax payer pick up the bill to clean and reinstate the site. That seems to be the usual m.o. for the entire fossil fuel debacle. The tax payer as usual ends up with the sticky expensive end of the deal, whilst the off shore tax haven coffers are filled to the brim.
[Edited by moderator]
Meanwhile back on planet Earth, we can welcome back an old friend “Fracking Farmhouse” latest contribution which addresses where we go from here after this pandemic has subsided, devastating though it is. There will have to be real change in the way the entire world, the real one, operates from now on. How that happens, positive or negative, remains to be seen.
A Fracking Farmhouse Covid Special 2020
David Kesteven raises the pertinent question, that during this devastating unprecedented pandemic this government claims to be guided by the science. Something remarkably lacking where climate change and species extinction due to human activity and the earstwhile fossil fuel monopoly over energy production and use is concerned.
What is suggested, is that the government can say they are following the science in the case of the pandemic because the source of the pandemic, the Covid-19 virus, has no lobbying capability in government.
Whereas the source of global climate change, the fossil fuel industry has a very strong lobby in this and other governments worldwide and is still doing so. In that way the government completely fails to be guided by the climate science and chooses instead to be guided if not controlled by the profit motives of the fossil fuel lobby.
We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening. To allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane. Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way.
It was interesting that the operators continued to attempt to enforce injunctions even when travel and social distancing, lock downs and Martial Law was taking place prevented any such activity. What could that hope to achieve when events have superseded any such requirement?
Perhaps there are further activities about to take place that the operators do not want to be monitored, questioned, or even observed?
“Coronavirus Capitalism”: Naomi Klein’s Case for Transformative Change Amid Coronavirus Pandemic
The reason that tidal and fusion are still being investigated, after DECADES, is that there have been a constant circular of promises, undelivered. Funding has been limited because the chances of a positive outcome are limited.
It would be absolutely great to see fusion cracked, but there are big issues in doing so.
Meanwhile, existing forms of energy production will be required after the pandemic. There will be some big bills to be funded and there will be tight control over expenditure towards probable return. Indeed, I suspect there may be a severe trade war coming, as countries seek mechanisms to force China to pay for the recovery.
Those coming along requiring tax payer expenditure of over £1 billion stating, ” IF it works, we want to build a bigger one at Cardiff” might find they are not top of the pile.
[Comment removed by moderator]
“Limited number”???
Well, welcome back KatT, but if you were a more frequent visitor you might have noticed those who are not anti have been well represented, whilst many of the antis have not.
Because a business is in debt, it does NOT mean the economics do not add up! Tesla would have had huge issues for many years if that was the case. So would most other businesses, and countries. It is all the rage to be in debt currently whilst debt is relatively cheap, and, in many cases being written off.
I think your reality is like jPs. Basically, what you would like but not what is happening in the real world.
You may be correct about Cuadrilla throwing in the towel, but like the boxing comparison, someone else will step into the ring. When the time is right.
Hmm.
Tesla announce closure of manufacturing and reduced salaries, KatT.
Seems the virus is not just an issue for oil/gas.
The key will be not so much about the debt levels of individual sectors, but the amount of support each will receive to sustain and recover.
There will no problem in that respect regarding US shale.
(Looks as if the antis are both low in quantity and quality today, KatT!
Again.)
Wash your hands with soap and water. Or, use some hand sanitizer from INEOS, although I suspect it is all going to the NHS and German Health Service at the moment-FREE OF CHARGE. Both will work well regarding the virus. But, as stated very clearly by a doctor yesterday on TV, do not badger your GP for antibiotics to deal with the virus. Absolute waste of time. No benefit at all, without a secondary bacterial infection requiring treatment.
Ineos have opened their third hand sanitizer plant and announced plans for a fourth.
https://www.sustainableplastics.com/news/ineos-build-fourth-hand-sanitiser-plant
That will be handy when Boris Johnson wants to wash his hands of fracking.
KatT, both the Leeds city gate project and the Liverpool/Manchester Hydrogen cluster project propose to use the steam reforming of Methane process to manufacture the required quantities of Hydrogen.
Should we use a local source and low leakage rate network for the supply of the natural gas or do we import natural gas with a 30% larger carbon footprint, that negates much of the progress made by increasing the share of wind and solar in our electricity generation mix?
Scientists made it cheaper to produce hydrogen from water
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-scientists-cheaper-hydrogen.html
Phil C, it is good to see that they may have found cheaper and more abundant materials for the catalyst, but still no method for reducing the amount of electricity required for the process. This remains the biggest hurdle in large scale production of Hydrogen from water electrolysis.
Maybe these times will see that such issues as there are, can be solved as a matter of urgency John. Many processes that seem daunting on the small scale, can become clear and be solved when operating on the large scale. Efficiencies in energy production from tidal to plasma fusion are already being investigated. It may not be acquisition of if, but when our energy production problems are solved once the human race put their minds towards solving problems.
Now seems the ideal time concentrate all those efforts into solving problems with solutions rather than fighting over problems between various entrenched factions. Those problems are best solved by all sides working together, not against eachother.
World Hydrogen production is currently in excess of 70 million tons a year. The vast majority of this is produced from fossil fuels and is responsible for the emission of around 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
Very little Hydrogen is manufactured from electrolysis, even less from electrolysis plants that use renewable electricity.
The world’s largest water electrolysis plant using renewable electricity is currently the Energiepark Mainz in Germany. This draws power from four nearby wind farms and when fully operational it can produce 200 tons of hydrogen per year (an average sized steam methane reformer in the US is capable of producing this amount of Hydrogen within 24 hours).
The world’s largest hydrogen electrolysis plant to be constructed so far, is due to come on line this year at the Rhineland refinery and chemical complex in Germany, The facility will use the vast surplus of steam available from the chemical plants and refinery to drive turbines and generators for the electricity required to produce 1,300 tons of Hydrogen annually (this will be in addition to the 180,000 tons of Hydrogen already produced annually at the site from Steam reforming of methane).
There are plans for a large scale Hydrogen electrolysis plant to supply Hydrogen for the Netherlands that will run on renewable electricity alone. The project envisages a wind farm that would grow from a capacity of 3 gigawatts (GW) in 2030 to 10 GW by 2040 (to put the size of the required wind farm into perspective, the UK’s combined number of 10,429 onshore and offshore wind turbines have a capacity of 22GW).
However, the plans are still at an early stage and depend, among other things, on government permits, the assignment of new wind farm locations in the North Sea and the availability of Dutch and European subsidies for green energy.
Well there you are then John. Time and effort, technology and necessity is solving the problems of electrolysis to produce hydrogen.
One of the advantages of electrolysis, is that it produces a third gas, called Browns Gas, where the oxygen molecules are electrically stimulated to form a breathable gas. That is more stable and less explosive than just hydrogen alone.
When that can be produced at the point of demand, rather than centrally produced and stored, which is hazardous. We may get to the point where truly locally based systems outweigh the need for vast centralised power plants.
John Kanzius now deceased, developed the process to make hydrogen at the point of need from salt water and radio frequency.
Making hydrogen.com
http://www.making-hydrogen.com/saltwater-hydrogen.html
That technology could revolutionalise the production of locally based systems that only requires salt water and a radio frequency generator. Both easily available and cheap and not requiring further fossil fuel exploration or production.. No dangerous hydrogen storage and processing required, since it is only produced at the points of use. Be that a house boiler or a local power unit.
That combined with new, non toxic, non rare metal catalyst battery systems may well produce entirely local energy production systems not requiring vast power plants and expensive infrastructure.
All it needs is the effort and time to develop the systems. Now is the ideal time for that. We had to grow up one day, now is a better time than any time or situation before for just that.
[Name corrected at poster’s request]
I hope the review by the new Cuadrilla owners/majority shareholders has allocated lots of money to restoring the land ruined by their failed attempts at test fracking. I hope that they have allocated another large chunk of money to fund the property repairs required after the August Bank Holiday weekend Hydrofrac earthquakes.
I understand that Cuadrilla are still claiming that they admit no responsibility for the damage to property resulting from the earthquakes caused by their fracking activity Peter?
Cuadrilla are merely offering “good will” payments in an attempt at avoiding responsibility for the damage and instead merely “offering good will”. I suspect that when the case for damage is proved to be Cuadrillas responsibility, then there will be many more claims for compensation for recorded damage, many of which were refused by Cuadrilla. Perhaps AJLucas will take Cuadrilla over entirely and refuse to be made responsible for such claims? Was that the purpose for the moves from AJLUcas to completely own Cuadrilla in all but name only perhaps?
So perhaps until that is pursued in a court of law. Cuadrillas responsibility for the damage resulting from their fracking activities will never be proved.
So, yes, you are quite correct to pursue it in that case.
I think Cuadrilla have already made it clear that any proven damage will be funded for repair, Peter. Whether that is large or small will depend upon the evidence-just like any insurance claim.
How is land ruined by such seismic activity? There are many (hundreds) such natural events in UK every year, and I have yet to see any evidence of ruined land as a result. However, I can see large tracts of land that were agricultural fields now covered in solar panels. Suppose it depends on what you designate as “ruined”.
Phil C
I do not see where the OGA not the EA have withdrawn any of the existing UK regulations applying to onshore oil and gas activities, as you say in your post above (you say …”to allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane )
I see that the OGA day they will be flexible in the application of timescales, but no mention of quashing the checks and balances inherent in the regulations.
https://drillordrop.com/2020/03/26/regulator-promises-flexibility-on-compliance-and-licences-during-coronavirus/
Hence I disagree with you on that point, and would opine that the onshore oil and gas industry remains governed by the set of regulations that were in place prior to the present pandemic.
I would also add that the offshore oil and gas industry will be in the same boat so to speak.
Hi hewes62, i trust you are having a good Easter Bank Holiday? Albeit somewhat “inflexible” regarding the Corona Virus Act social distancing, self imposed isolation, and limited travel “regulations?
You are of course welcome to your opinion, however, if you decide to operate “flexibility” regarding the Corona Virus Act regulations, except of course where going to the shops for “essential items” or perhaps helping a local elderly and infirm person with food and medications, in the way in which we are “encouraged” to do.
Perhaps i could ask you to please film any encounter you have with a police persons, in the event of being outside, who asks you to return home for the safety of the NHS and the public, when you inform that police person, that you consider that such “regulations” under the Corona Virus Act are to be interpreted “flexibly” as in the OGA announcement? I suspect that the inevitable result would be quite “arresting” of what the police think of such an excuse.
Maybe, if the OGA and the EA are able to impose an “on the spot” fine or arrest commensurate with the degree of specific non compliance, in that respect, then perhaps i would be less abrasive regarding the OGA announcement. However, just like the police, i tend towards the enforcement of stringent regulations and reject claims of “flexible” interpretation of the regulations.
I fully appreciate that there are “essential personnel” in such cases. However compliance with regulations are no less enforceable where non compliance is determined as being counter productive, and should be no more “flexibly” interpreted than any other “essential” operation under the Corona Virus Act regulations as anyone else. The action of “one law for some and another for everyone else” is no excuse in law, nor does that wash with the environment.
So, sorry hewes62 but in the light of recent events, I disagree somewhat fundamentally with your opinion. Not only that, the protection of the environment is at least of the same paramount importance as the Corona Virus Act pandemic protection matters.
The potential dangers of Climate deterioration are at the very least, clearly as dangerous, if not more so. Already we see China gearing up to re-establish their economy based upon the same environmental dangers that the rest of the world will no doubt see when the pandemic subsides.
It would be much better for this country at least to prepare for the coming reinstatement of all those environmentally damaging operations.
We need as a matter of urgency, to make proper plans to do something drastic to achieve a better way of living in harmony with the Earth, just as the Corona Virus lock down has demonstrated so eloquently what happens when pollution and exploitation of the planets resources subsides to minimal impact.
PS
Following our conversation of three or four weeks ago, (it seems such a long time ago doesn’t it) I see that the National Emergency measures incorporated in the Coronavirus Act has replaced the normal operation of law in the UK, if not the entire planet, and has allowed the Coronavirus Act to take precedent over Common Law in the UK.
Also the Heathrow expansion was refused on climate change grounds. That was precisely the precedent that we envisaged wasnt it?
Neither of us expected that to occur so quickly I suspect. But here we are under lock down and travel restrictions. That is exactly what was claimed to be impossible to achieve with climate change reduction measures and would destroy the economy and devastate business and society. And yet here we are doing exactly that.
Now there is a precedent in law for future climate change measures and the Corona virus Act has shown us all precisely what can be done worldwide when such a planet wide situation as the Corona Virus pandemic and Climate Change is and will endanger life.
I suspect these measures will be extended to the climate change situation on the same terms.
Unless of course, the requirements to protect the environment due to the effects of climate change were to be interpreted as “flexible” in such an inexact and undefined manner as the OGA have announced regarding fossil fuel operations?
As we have seen recently, stranger things have happened.
Phil C
I have not overlooked the ps. I do need to have a closer look at the legislation.
However it does seem that a national emergency is nothing without existing legislation mentioning the term, or additional.legislation being passed setting out what is to be done.
Phil C
Thank you. The lockdown is holding here in the sticks it seems, with few issues for the police to attend to in the villages, other than the odd group playing football on the recreation field and a number of shops of steep hill being relieved of their window displays (at night ).
Your initial post caught my eye as you mentioned both the EA and the OGA in the same breath, and you were not factually correct.
You said
”We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening”.
1. OGA
The OGA ( as reported here on DOD ) have issued a statement laying out their policy in light of the pandemic.
The statement does not say that they are withdrawing their checks and balances.
A link to their statement is below.
Hence I do not consider your statement to be factually correct in relation to the OGA.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2020/message-from-andy-samuel-oga-chief-executive/
2. EA
The EA have published their policy in light of the pandemic as below
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/environment-agency-operational-update-3-april-2020
The EA do not say that they are withdrawing environmental checks and balances.
In particular, the AE say, in that document
”Our regulatory role
We will continue to carry out regulatory visits to sites that could cause serious environmental harm where required. However, we are reducing regulatory visits to other sites and review how best to regulate them in accordance with the government guidance”.
Hence I do not consider your statement factually correct in relation to the EA.
As an aside I would note that SEPA (the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency ) have a similar approach, burdened though they are with the bulk of the UK oil and gas assets to regulate.
https://coronavirus.sepa.org.uk/
You then said
”To allow fossil fuel operators to carry on without any such regulations in place is quite insane”.
I and no doubt all readers of DOD would agree that to allow onshore oil and gas ( or indeed any regulated activity ) to carry on without ‘such’ regulations would be quite insane. However, as laid out above, and in communications from the regulators, there has been no withdraw of such regulations. I expect this will be a relief to those reading DOD who were under the impression that this was the case.
You then say
”Anything can be taking place during this lock down out of sight whilst being unregulated in any meaningful way”
Anything is a broad church. I would not expect Cuadrilla to sneak a frack spread onto the Preston Road Site and crack on fracking due to the pandemic, so i think the term ‘everything is overcooking it somewhat.
Out of sight while being unregulated is not factually correct. The Oil and gas industry continue to be regulated by need to comply with the existing regulations. Nor or are they out of sight, as inspections continue.
Regarding your point concerning the Covid regulations
You say
However, just like the police, i tend towards the enforcement of stringent regulations and reject claims of “flexible” interpretation of the regulations.
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick there. The Police have a flexible and pragmatic approach when enforcing the regulations.
The police approach can be found in the link below, but the key quote from that document is …
”The police’s approach to all COVID-19 powers is for officers to engage, explain, encourage the public and only enforce as a last resort.
The police are taking a joined up approach with healthcare professionals to help save lives.
These police are not seeking to criminalise people, but to ensure that people follow the life-saving guidance.”
Hence the police do not share your approach to enforcement of said regulations. Indeed, their approach is far more in line with that taken by the OGA, and as such seems to be a pragmatic and flexible approach as you can get.
https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Support/Health-safety/Pages/Coronavirus-Act-2020.aspx
Hence, overall I see no great threat to the environment from the small UK oil and gas industry, as a result of the pandemic in relation to the OGA statement nor the EA statement.
Indeed experience would show that the lock down has given great benefit to the environment, which may well lead to some thought on how pollution is a result of consumption (to which the polluter, the user, seldom pays ), and the role of plastics as constituents of life saving equipment be it ventilators through to PPE.
Just as a reduction in consumption and hence price may well snuff out the remnants of the UK onshore oil and gas industry and shrink the offshore oil and gas industry to boot, thus ensuring it stays in the ground somewhere else as well as on your doorstep.
Hi hewes62. Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps in Paul Tresto’s words, you appear to have a lot of time on your hands?
However fortunately I would not be so rude as to suggest such a thing.
What a lot of words? And you still have not replied to the entire post, but instead just isolate individual words in order to construct that very long post on that alone. Haven’t we been here before? I feel a deja vu when reading some of your very long post, the rest im afraid i skipped. I must have caught Paul’s attention span problem!
Oh well, Twas Ever Thus, Twill Ever Be So? Never mind. Ts’all gris t’t mill.
Apparently you didn’t notice hewes62, but i had already answered everything in my post reply to yours. And then some.
Let’s keep it short and concise and to the point shall we? You must be boring Paul Tresto already.
Compliance to regulations isn’t “flexible”.hewes62. There is no flexibility in the safety regulations, otherwise there is no safety is there? Just as there is no flexibility in ecological matters, or there will be no ecology left to regulate about will there? We are dangerously close to that already.
No. Compliance with any regulation whether that be the OGA, or the EA or the Coronavirus Act as interpreted by the police, is either fully compliant or it’s not compliant at all.
Compliance is full compliance, flexibility that allows unspecified leeway to an unspecified degree in unspecified matters is not compliance at all. It’s non compliance.
It’s as simple as that. No prevarication, no leeway, no flexibility. That is why the police fine and arrest those who transgress the Corona virus regulations. It’s for everyone’s safety, the NHS and everybody.
So you see, I was perfectly correct to point that out and I stand by that. Sorry if that doesn’t fit your subsequent inconcise long drawn out narrative hewes62, But those are the facts. There are no if’s and’s or buts about it.
So, I stand by my first post and my reply to your post, which says precisely why I was correct the first time.
I hope you had a good Easter Bank Holiday hewes62, keeping precisely to the Corona virus regulations of course as did we all. And I’m sure that you were only too happy to self regulate in order to ensure that no possibility of potential flexibility allowed any danger to the NHS staff or the general public?
After all, it’s the responsible thing to do isn’t it?
There, shorter, sweeter and more concise.
Have a good week. One and all.
Phil C
As promised
You say ( or he said )
,,
”Compliance to regulations isn’t “flexible”.hewes62. There is no flexibility in the safety regulations, otherwise there is no safety is there?”
You are incorrect. There is a fair amount of flexibility in the UK Health and Safety Legislation passed under the HSWA.
In addition this flexibility does not mean that there is no safety, as the safety record of the UK would attest to ( in the years since the HSWA was passed and since the resulting regulations have been passed and ACOPs produced.
Information on this approach is available in the link below.
Click to access hse-innovation-in-regulation.pdf
A key extract from that work is below (which specifically mentions flexibility)
The enduring principle of health and safety law in Great Britain is that those who create risks are best placed to control them, and they should do so in a proportionate and practicable way. The approach is primarily goal-setting, not prescriptive. It sets out the objectives to be achieved, giving dutyholders considerable flexibility when deciding what measures are needed to meet these objectives and supporting innovation.
Goal-setting gives dutyholders the freedom and the incentive to meet regulatory requirements in the most cost-effective way possible, applying new or existing technologies to control the risks in ways that maximise their productivity.
Therefore the facts do not support the assertion that there is no flexibility in safety regulations, as anyone with a passing knowledge of the UK regulatory framework would already know..
Phil then says
”Compliance is full compliance, flexibility that allows unspecified leeway to an unspecified degree in unspecified matters is not compliance at all. It’s non compliance”
But ( from the information above ) the flexibility and leeway is already enshrined in the law ( and in particular the enforcement system ),hence the above opinion is not correct both in fact and in law in relation to safety law.
.
No hewes62. You are wrong again in what you say. That is three counts in which you only concentrate on certain words only and fail to apply any relevant logic. Merely repeating a word in a document does not confirm what you claim.
[Edited by moderator]
No, the clause you reproduce does not say that the regulations are flexible. What is says is something different, that is only that the circumstances in which regulations are applied can be under certain circumstances to be flexible.
“The approach is primarily goal-setting, not prescriptive. It sets out the objectives to be achieved, giving dutyholders considerable flexibility when deciding what measures are needed to meet these objectives and supporting innovation.”
“What measures” not that the regulations themselves are “flexible”. A subtle difference, but a vitally important one.
Again i repeat that i am quite correct in saying that the regulations are not at all flexible.
The extract you reproduce does not say that either. Only that application of the regulations which are not in themselves flexible, may be considered to be flexible in certain circumstances.
The OGA announcement makes the same mistake. Lets see what the OGA says:
“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact on our way of life, the economic impact, combined with a significant fall in the commodity price, has hit the UK oil and gas industry hard.
The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) is firmly focused on its role of working with industry and government through this difficult time to safeguard both the energy supply we know is needed for the foreseeable future and the thousands of jobs which help deliver it.
Maintaining our critical infrastructure is vital. We’re working very closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and HM Treasury on financial resilience, while supporting the work of industry and trade associations such as OGUK and UKOOG on operational and logistical resilience.
The scale of the challenge is considerable, and the efforts of all parties are fixed on successfully navigating through this unprecedented period of uncertainty.
We at the OGA have swiftly re-prioritised in response to this evolving situation. Areas of immediate focus include: financial and operational resilience; operations and turnarounds; licence management; supply chain; and communication. We recognise the immediacy of the current situation and will work flexibly with all parties as appropriate.
OGA actions and reprioritisation include:
We have reorganised and identified key points of contact – these can be found here.
We will take a pragmatic approach to compliance where we can.
We will take a flexible approach to considering amendments to licence timelines. We encourage operators to engage with us early, with evidence, on any specific requests.
We expect to offer our 32nd Offshore Licensing Round awards in summer 2020 and will be considerate and open to dialogue with applicants at the time of award.
We have de-prioritised stewardship reviews, including only holding reviews with operators in relation to regulatory or materially significant matters.
We are working with operators and the supply chain to help secure timely payments.
We will continue to keep work under review including pausing or postponing other work if required.
In the midst of the serious threats facing the sector, we have not lost sight of the importance of achieving the UK’s net zero ambitions. We are continuing our programme to integrate net zero considerations into our work because we know that the oil and gas industry can play a significant and leading role in helping the UK achieve this. However, sensitive to the other immediate priorities facing the industry, we will implement this important net zero programme in a way which is both considerate and flexible.
In the meantime, the OGA continues to operate with all staff working remotely; please continue to contact us in the usual way.”
Quotes: This is the clause which mentions compliance:
“We will take a pragmatic approach to compliance where we can.”
A flexible approach to compliance is not a flexible approach to which particular regulation is used. The word “flexible” is used in relation to compliance. That is wrong, what it should have said, is:
“We will take a pragmatic approach to (application of) compliance where we can.”
Quite the wrong context is given, and that is why i said quite correctly that it is compliance which is seen as being flexible. Whereas it should be stating that the it is the application of undiminished regulations in certain circumstances that should be seen as flexible.
What is stated is that it is the compliance of regulations themselves that is seen as flexible. That gives entirely the wrong message from the OGA.
I was quite correct in pointing that out.
If you really must draw out these long interminable isolated word association football games in an attempt to try to appear superior, or more accurately to attempt to discredit anything i say, then perhaps it would be better that you fully understand precisely, in precise unequivicable terms, the grammatical language of what you are saying, rather than simply quote something that only uses the same word in a different and incorrect context.
So i was right and you are wrong to say i was not.
So sorry to have to deflate your attempt to concentrate on isolated words in order to try and make some vague point scoring in such a long winded time on your hands way.
As we have seen only too often before, that is your common practice. Unfortunately it is clearly and incorrectly applied in entirely the wrong context, as was your previous attempted dissection and vivisection of anything i say.
Hey! Ho!
Such fun!
Have a nice day.
Phil C
Thanks. You raise a few interesting points relating to the difference between pragmatic and flexible. I will have a further look at your points and reply. I would point out though that you raised the point of flexibility and being pragmatic in terms of the ‘Safety’. The regulations enforced by the OGA and the EA are not enacted under the Health and Safety at work act. Hence my reply to your point about safety regulations applies to those enacted under the HSWA (hence the examples linked).
The OGA does not regulate under the HSWA, nor does it enforce regulations which are regulated by the EA.
However, my initial point about the regulations was in reference to your initial statement which i have repeated below. This has been skipped over I feel. Hence I will repeat it here.
You said
”We have already seen the sudden and alarming withdrawal of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA, and the EA at a time when in fact we need to enforce even more stringent checks and balances whilst little or no on site presence is happening”.
1. OGA
The OGA ( as reported here on DOD ) have issued a statement laying out their policy in light of the pandemic.
The statement does not say that they are withdrawing their checks and balances.
A link to their statement is below.
Hence I do not consider your statement to be factually correct in relation to the OGA.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2020/message-from-andy-samuel-oga-chief-executive/
Hence, as it is a rather worrying assertion should people believe it to be true ….
You have yet to provide any evidence that there has been a withdraw of environmental regulations checks and balances by the OGA.
You have yet to provide any evidence that there has been a withdraw of environmental regulations checks and balances by the EA.
A starter for 10 would be a list of the environmental regulations enforced by the OGA, along with a lost of the checks and balances withdrawn (rather than deferred, say ) by the OGA.
Likewise a list of the checks and balances withdrawn by the EA would be good.
So, while we have had a journey around free time, the flexibility of safety regulations and if there is any flexibility in compliance, how the police enforce the Covid regulations, something to do with football, floating headers, et al, the key point remains.
What withdrawl of checks and balances by the OGA and the EA have we seen?
[Comment removed by moderator]
[comment removed by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Phil C
Thanks. If you had said you were concerned by the OGA statement and their use of the term flexibility, i do think anyone could query your statement.
However, to expand the issue to a withdrawl of checks and balances by the OGA AND…EA was worthy of challenge.
Such propaganda aimed at mis informing the DoD reading public deserves a fact check.
End of conversation.
Phil C
Thanks
No facts. Noted.
If you have no facts hewes62 then why did you start this tirade?
Speaking with my son, hewes62, who has returned to work in the NHS after suffering, and recovering from Covid-19, he reports their stores were broken into and their stocks of PPE were stolen.
So, it would appear the police are not always being helped to help us!
Generally, though, in my neck of the woods, compliance seems to have been good. I did have to venture out around 10 days ago to collect a prescription and found more police cars on the road than other vehicles. Perhaps one of the things that could be corrected later on is that prescriptions can always be transmitted by electronic means for a pharmacy to supply. Obviously gaps in that system still. Such gaps in the past have been accepted as an inconvenience but not serious. Suspect that sort of approach will be reviewed-at last. As will supply chains, and sourcing from insecure sources.
Not sure consumption of oil and gas will be reduced for very long. For example, an awful lot of people will be looking for a holiday as soon as they can book one, and the airlines will offer all sort of special deals. And those countries with little else to support recovery of their economies other than oil and gas, will utilise that resource as soon as they can. Oil and gas can always stay in the ground for a bit longer if required until economics come into alignment. Many industries do not have that luxury.
Hi Martin & Hewes62,
Interesting article in Energy-Pedia:
https://www.energy-pedia.com/news/united-kingdom/government-admits-bp-drilling-permit-process-was-unlawful—greenpeace-wins-legal-challenge-179269
Perhaps Green Peas will kill off the UK North Sea sector? Increase our dependence on imports? Or re-focus onshore UK?
Covid-19 offshore as well – must be a challenge dealing with this:
Click to access 20200327_-_HUR_RNS_-_Operational_Update_vF.pdf
https://www.marinelink.com/news/offshore-oil-rig-infection-exposes-476525
https://www.ft.com/content/0e8c456b-c086-4a9a-9fa9-83b5038a00c4
Paul Tresco
Thanks. Yes, Greenpeace is going for the low hanging fruit. They may well.scupper the Scottish oil industry, but I suspect that the SNP will sort it out, as oil money is a key plank in their desire for independance.
BP should have been a bit sharper as well.
R egarding offshore Covid, no surprises there I guess, each company has been making plans for a while, which includes minimum manning. In SNS though a number of helidecks cannot take the Covid choppet, so you get winched off it seems!
In VN we prepared for avian flu. The VN army approach for the power station was clear. If there is a lockdown then nobody leaves the power station ( escapees would be shot ). The power station had to remain operational.
Ditto offshore ( no rotation until lockdown lifted ).
It never happened as you know but we had lots of spare food and other supplies to get rid of once the threat subsided, as well as dismantling the temporary mortuary.
Martin
Thanks. Yes, there has been some theft of PPE locally tho small scale. The local Tesco did suffer a shortage of toilet paper in the toilets as the local light fingered brigade emptied each cubicle of paper, but normal service was resumed soon after it seems by posting a security person near the entrance.
‘re oil consumption, you may be right. Difficult to double guess oil prices and or oil company share prices, but interesting that the main producers have got together to agree cuts. Not sure where gas prices will end up.
Hewes62.
Thanks for your reply on the “PS” addendum to my comment. I was just listening to the rapid moves to build the Nightingale Hospitals that have been rushed through without the usual consultation, design consideration changes and Planning Permission.
All under the auspices of the Corona Virus Act requirements that have superseded the normal process of design consultation and the Planning Laws and regulations. That would appear to indicate that the statuary processes of existing legislation are as a matter of National Emergency, to be moderated with these measures just as we said earlier.
That is in order to speed through the design, and construction of these vital structures. I understand from that report that 400 people are engaged in these emergency measures and were given one day off over the Easter Bank Holidays. All during the lock down and travel restrictions under essential personnel requirements under the present Corona virus National Emergency measures.
All of that indicates what can be done under the auspices of a National Emergency regardless of existing legislation and the operation of Law. With the entire country under lock down apart from such measures, the arguments that business and the economy could never be endangered and suspended in order to action Climate Change measures is rendered somewhat moot isnt it.
This is the ideal time to double down on measures as a matter of urgency, in order to protect the climate from further devastation from all of mans thoughtless assaults on the very planet. This one and only planet, orbiting a fusion star, that maintains our very existence. Without that we have nothing. It really is that simple. We should be using this time for planning renewable energy matters, not allowing existing fossil fuel operator regulations to be seen as “flexible”. Quite the reverse is paramount.
Similar measures will take place now the human race has woken up to the similar, if not much greater dangers of the growing climate change deterioration. That will become even more obvious as worldwide lock downs and restrictions begin to reverse the present and highly visible effects. Only a few short weeks have shown clearly the obvious return of wildlife, the remarkably clear sky’s everywhere, and clear waters as seen in rivers and particularly in Venice. Al this remarkable examples of natures recovery in such a short time that are so much in evidence everywhere.
That only goes to show what we can do, when necessity demands it, and what we must do to finally return towards living in natural harmony with the Earths natural ecological systems and to stop ravaging and raping every resource, mineral, animal and vegetable, for mere profit and greed.
Scientists Warning: How Coronavirus Has Changed Our World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vavcqzsr6EU&feature=em-uploademail
Dr. Alison Green – Growth Economics is Killing Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF9meFb-uUM
I wish you all abundant clean food, clear skys and clean water. The return of nature into our lives, and the learning of the lessons from this terrible event that has shown us up so clearly and embarrassingly.
This is from Damian Kahya daily report from Unearthed, aka Greenpeace (no greenpeas required? Except of course as a healthy natural food!)
“Breaking on Unearthed: UK aid money used for fossil fuel investments
UK aid money has been used to invest in oil and gas projects across the developing world, Unearthed has found. CDC Group, the government’s development finance institution, which invests aid money in businesses in poorer countries, has active investments in 16 oil and gas projects across Africa and one in south-east Asia.
These investments include support for two Texas-based oil companies operating in west Africa, a Qatari oil and gas firm with interests in Africa and a Canadian oil company working in South Africa. Some of the investments benefited firms opening up new oil and gas extraction.
A CDC spokesperson told Unearthed that these investments “are historic and do not reflect the group’s current investment priorities.”
Top Stories
Second wave of locusts in east Africa said to be 20 times worse: Starting away from the pandemic, a second wave of desert locusts is threatening east Africa with estimates that it will be 20 times worse then the plague that descended two months ago. The swam, which has been exacerbated by climate change, has been made more difficult to tackle because of the pandemic. Kenyan officials have said coronavirus crackdowns have slowed efforts to fight the infestation, as crossing borders has become harder and pesticide deliveries are held up.
Fires close to Chernobyl as climate change rolls on: Forest fires that have been burning for several days in northern Ukraine are now no more than a few kilometres from the abandoned Chernobyl nuclear plant, reports say. The two piece of news come as ProPublica reports on the challenges of dealing with a pandemic and the impacts of climate change at the same time. A few people are using phrases like “cascading disasters” to describe how different natural threats interact with each other to produce outcomes (even) more problematic than the sum of their parts.
“To say that we are not prepared for these concurrent disasters is putting it mildly,” said Irwin Redlener, a clinical professor of health policy at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and a leading expert in public health ramifications of catastrophic events. “I’m extremely worried.” The Problem – according to ProPublica – is that there is no real planning for this. A spokesperson for the California State Department of Public Health, which manages disaster response, replied to questions with an email stating simply that “we’re not speculating on the overlap of coronavirus and wildfires.”
Climate action delayed due to pandemic: Climate home reports that China could delay submitting it climate plans at least until after the US presidential election in November as officials focus on reviving the economy from an unprecedented slowdown, experts have warned. The news comes as Reuters reports that the Japanese Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi warned on Monday that the Paris climate accord could face death if steps to fight global warming were put on the backburner to facilitate the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. Turning to the detail Mongabey reports that environmental groups are seeking an injunction against South Korea’s post-COVID bail-out of a major coal plant builder.
Zooming back the FT has a long-read on how the pandemic has stalled action on climate change. There are two sides to this. The deprioritisation of conversations and institutional progress (see above) and the nature of the economic stimulus plans which replace policy action on climate. “Initial signs from Beijing suggest it is ramping up heavy industry as it eases the coronavirus lockdown. The number of coal-fired power plants it approved in the first three weeks of March was more than the number approved during the whole of 2019, according to data from Global Energy Monitor,” reports the FT. Elsewhere there is political desire for the stimulus to be green – the paper reports – but funding may be an issue after trillions have been spent on economic life support. To riff off this myself – it’s cheaper to de-regulate than to build up. Not that rolling back emissions is a successful long-term way of boosting the economy. The Atlantic reports that Trump’s move to eliminate pollution rules on cars could cause billions of dollars in damage.
Also the same funding pressures are likely to apply to the oil industry. Reuters reports that Shell has just pulled out of a major Russian project, the question is what will happen to it’s renewable plans. Ultimately the best-case may be a hoped-for shift in values. “People have to understand that the consequences of their actions can be collective and can be big,” says Nicholas Stern from London’s Granthem Institute. “In a sense that is the same story in climate change.”
And finally.. The LA times reports on how wildlife is reclaiming one of America’s greatest national parks – shut due to the virus. “The bear population has quadrupled,” said Peterson, noting a surge of large megafauna into the fields, thoroughfares and open spaces of the park.
“It’s not like they aren’t usually here,” he said of the bears, bobcats and coyotes that he and other employees now see congregating outside their cabins and apartments. “It’s that they usually hang back at the edges, or move in the shadows.”