The amount of carbon that would be emitted during any future oil production at West Newton in East Yorkshire would be smaller than the UK onshore average, according to the conclusions of a study announced today.
The assessment rated the carbon intensity of potential upstream crude oil production from West Newton as AA – the best available.
The authors, consultancy GaffneyCline, estimated that West Newton could produce the equivalent of 5g of carbon dioxide per megajoule of energy created.
In a statement, Union Jack Oil, an investor in the West Newton field, said:
“The carbon intensities at West Newton are significantly lower than the UK average and compared to other onshore analogues.”
The study estimated that West Newton’s carbon intensity could be reduced to 3.5g of CO2 per megajoule of energy created by using gas-to-grid technologies.
There was also potential to improve the figure further by reducing fugitive emissions and emissions from flaring and venting, the authors said.
The West Newton licence, operated by Rathlin Energy, is still at the exploration stage. The second well at West Newton-A site is due to be tested this year. Work is underway on site construction at the West Newton-B site nearby.
Union Jack’s executive chairman, David Bramhill, said:
“This study is an excellent overview of the green credentials for any future development decision at West Newton.
“The AA rating achieved indicates the efforts made by the Operator, Rathlin Energy (UK) Limited, to ensure that projects under its stewardship comply with best practice. Union Jack and Reabold Resources Plc support Rathlin’s strategy to negate the effects and threat of climate change.
“The Board of Union Jack believes that in these environmentally-aware times, investors will only wish to commit to investments in companies and projects that support a transition to a low-carbon economy.”
The study used an oil production greenhouse gas emissions estimator and an assessment of the global carbon intensity of crude oil production.
Friends of the Earth Scotland, responding to an initiative by the Oil and Gas Authority, said today:
“Emissions from extracting oil and gas represent just a tiny fraction of the total climate emissions created when these fossil fuels are burned.”
The organisation’s campaigner Ryan Morrison said:
“The oil and gas industry is being disingenuous with its focus on reducing the impact of extracting fossil fuels without any acknowledgement of the far greater impacts of actually burning billions of barrels of oil and gas.
“The only honest zero carbon strategy is a rapid, well-planned conversion of the offshore industry away from fossil fuels and towards renewables.
“Fossil fuels drive the climate crisis and the industry has shown time and time again it does not serve the interests of people or planet.”
Today’s publication of the West Newton study comes a day after BP announced it wold cut £14bn from the value of oil and gas assets and said it may be forced to leave some fossil fuel discoveries in the ground. The reset was likely to accelerate BP’s plans to end its contribution to the climate crisis by 2050, commentators have said.
So much better than some US on shore situations!
More reality suddenly emerges, but will be conveniently ignored by a few due to it being inconvenient.
“Gas to grid” and gas to electricity generation seem to take a disproportionate amount of time to be up and running. Anyone know why this should be the case and why it could not be shortened?
You can’t sugarcoat a turd , it’s still a turd
Well, Jono, if that is what you like to do, perhaps MasterChef could help?
Meanwhile, you can’t sugarcoat young kids in DRC contacting dreadful diseases through handling carcinogens without any PPE, to create a false image for a few who can’t even reward them properly for taking that risk.
Interesting couple of comments from the two antis. Not interested in the environmental benefits compared to other CURRENTLY USED resources, only interested in denial of the reality. Par for the course, but a sad reflection. Change comes from small, steady steps, not revolution. Appears that some are more interested in their own agendas rather than the achievement of those small steady steps.
Staying in the here and now,
The attempt to extract gas at West Newton has already created pollution in excess of the limits agreed by Rathlin to the extent that it forced the premature closing of West Newton A.
The greenwash of West Newton B includes permitted levels of gas leaks which inevitably contribute to climate change.
These are small steps to try to continue exploitation of a precious resource for profit when there are more than enough, very cheap hydrocarbon resources currently available for the foreseeable future.
Helpful if you could spell out your agenda Martin – I think you’ll agree mine is clear. Yours is not.
If you want a bad example of gas to grid look at the enforced closedown of the Third Energy Knapton plant and the consequent close down of the Ryedale gaswells which supply it you can see another example of the key issues of fugitive emissions which make all gas, whether fracked or otherwise, such a dirty source of energy.
I have no agenda, Jon. I have made it quite clear numerous times I use gas and I use oil and it’s products, just like you do. I prefer whilst I use oil and gas I use the most environmentally friendly sources and, conveniently, the same ones that provide income to the UK.
It was an expensive lesson, but I would have thought £500k cost might have focused a few upon:
“There is no suggestion that this proposal would increase the use of hydrocarbons, and the evidence demonstrates that the effect would be simply to transfer production to a more local source.”
Dirty source of energy? So, DRAX converting to gas will be dirtier than it was? Tosh.
Nope. “Starts” may mean the future, it may mean a past failed development in the future, but not the here and now.
But, thanks for taking the time to re-enforce my post.
But, if anyone wants the real here and now, the words of the Wressle Inspector could be referenced:
“There is no suggestion that this proposal would increase the use of hydrocarbons, and the evidence demonstrates that the effect would be simply to transfer production to a more local source.” Of course you can disagree with that-if you are willing to deny local communities £500k!