Regulation

New name for oil and gas regulator

The Oil & Gas Authority became the North Sea Transition Authority, or NSTA, this morning.

The new organisation, despite the title’s reference to the North Sea, will also regulate the onshore industry.

A spokesperson for the NSTA said:

“Onshore oil and gas remain very much part of the NSTA.”

The new name is intended to reflect the organisation’s role in the energy transition, the spokesperson said:

“The NSTA will continue to play a vital role in ensuring energy security as the body which stewards the oil and gas industry, both on and offshore, with energy transition issues already playing a significant and increasing role in the organisation’s day-to-day activities.”

The industry is expected to play “a key role in the energy transition and support energy se

Several onshore companies are pursuing hydrogen production and renewable energy projects, such as geothermal heat and battery storage.

Asked whether the new organisation would regulate these projects, the spokesperson said:

“We have not received any new regulatory responsibilities.”

Andy Samuel, head of the OGA, is now chief executive of NSTA. He said:

“The UK is moving to a net zero, low carbon future and the Russian government’s invasion of Ukraine reinforces the need for pace. Meanwhile oil and gas remain vital for energy security as we transition. The NSTA is ideally placed to support both.

“Our values remain the same while the organisation is adapting to meet the UK’s changing needs. We will continue our strong focus on value creation for government, the public and industry.”

NTSA said its work would include:

  • Stewarding ongoing production from oil and gas fields
  • Regulating new oil and gas developments from licensing to production
  • Monitoring industry greenhouse gas emissions
  • Leading studies on the potential for hydrogen power and carbon storage

10 replies »

  1. Shouldn’t the authority have been called the “North Atlantic Sea Transition Authority”? Or “NASTA” (Or, “Never A Straight Transition Answer”?)

    That was fun! I did enjoy that!

    • It could be called “FASTA” maybe for a “Faster Atlantic Sea Transition Authority”? Or “RASTA”, for a more “Relaxed Atlantic Sea Transition Authority”?

      Perhaps considering the current situation, the “R” could be less “Relaxed” and more…. Slavic? Well, you can guess that one for yourselves….

      The real question, which sticks out like a sore thumb, is, why waste everyones time changing the OGA name at all? And how does the “North Sea” name relate to the onshore transition away from oil and gas in Great Britain in any way at all?

      I guess, it’s the “Oil and Gas” part of the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) that sticks in their bureaucratic transitional craw?

      So, are the government going to call onshore Oil and Gas, “Transition” elements from now on then? And have the very words “oil and gas” now become the equivalent of bureaucratic blasphemy? Like the EU calling natural gas (and by association, oil too, since they tend to be found in the same locality) “green”? That would figure, wouldn’t it. It’s typical of government just to rename something, rather than actually do anything about it at all.

      As for naming something to make any difference. I recall that in the WEF, agenda 2030, common purpose and intersectionist fake dialogue does precisely that. Renaming something to an obscure capital letter apparently inoffensive acronym is the most effective way of conflating the real issues by denying that the issue is even a problem any more. Since it no longer exists in the name and acronym. That is called “reframing” in those fake bureaucratic narrative circles. The intention is to obscure the purpose of the exercise. Which is to deny there is an issue at all, at least in bureaucratic terms. Business as usual. Move along please. Nothing to see here.

      So maybe RASTA, could stand for the “Reframed Atlantic Sea Transition Authority”?

      There is also the possibility of a “South Atlantic Transition Authority Nexus”… I’ll leave you to turn that into an inconvenient acronym yourselves….

      Have a good day. And avoid those “Bureaucratic Synonyms” ….(BS)….

      • There was also something that Ruth Hayhurst and Drill or Drop picked up on, which I missed at first look.

        The text is copied and pasted here, with apologies to Ruth and Paul at Drill or Drop:

        “The industry (one presumes that refers to the fossil fuel industry) is expected to play “a key role in the energy transition and support energy se.”
        Several onshore companies are pursuing hydrogen production and renewable energy projects, such as geothermal heat and battery storage.
        Asked whether the new organisation would regulate these projects, the spokesperson said:
        “We have not received any new regulatory responsibilities.”

        Now that avoidance of the question is interesting, isn’t it? No mention of a “new regulatory responsibilities for hydrogen production and renewable energy projects”?

        So who, or what regulatory body, will regulate “Several onshore companies that are pursuing hydrogen production and renewable energy projects, such as geothermal heat and battery storage.”?

        Does that also apply to offshore activities in potential hydrogen production and renewable energy projects in the same way? It’s not so much what these government agencies do say. It’s often what they don’t say and what is omitted and left hanging.

        Time for a new, obscuring acronym change for an old and financially and organisationally powerless rubber stamp agency perhaps.

        Maybe it could be called the “Carbon/Hydrogen Environment Agency Transition Authority”? Or “CHEATA”? All the convenient prerequisites for obscuring and reframing there. Though it will need a massive input of funds, personnel and technical expertise. All of which were deliberately extracted from the EA in order to render it powerless and unfit for purpose other than for rubber stamp purposes.

        It’s a funny old government, isn’t it? (Not!)

        Have a good day.

        • Incidentally, this name change of the OGA to the NSTA was also reported in:
          https://www.edie.net/news/6/Oil-and-Gas-Authority-renames-as-North-Sea-Transition-Authority/

          Which says that “The organisation, which is a Government Company and an executive agency for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), said the name change will “reflect its evolving role in the energy transition”.

          “Changes to be taken into account include the Authority’s new role as the UK’s permitting authority for carbon storage in the North Sea, as carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies scale. The body also has a role in integrating planning for offshore wind with planning for oil and gas.”

          “Additionally, it is responsible for carrying out climate “stress tests” for new projects. There is no word yet on whether the testing framework will be altered, following criticism from the Climate Change Committee.”
          https://www.edie.net/news/11/UK-Government-s-bullish-support-for-new-oil-and-gas-unwise–CCC-warns/

          So this new body is again an executive body, and as stated previously, executive bodies are taking over the role of previously publicly accountable organisations. Executive bodies are not responsible to the public and are only responsible to the government and the Prime Minister, both of whom have already set their hypocritical flags contrary to the COP26 debacle.

          In other words, you don’t have a say in how, or what the NSTA (synonyms already provided) do, or say, or how that affects your health, wealth or democratic status one way or the other. Only government and the Prime Minister have those privileges.

          So the new N(A)STA (synonyms already provided) now have a role in Carbon Capture and Storage, an insanely expensive attempt to greenwash the oil and gas industry. Also, the new N(!)STA organisation will have an entirely new role in integrating Planning for offshore wind power generation (no mention of onshore wind power generation) and Planning for “oil and gas.” (no mention of whether that is onshore or offshore considerations). So what will happen to onshore oil and gas planning applications and will that supersede or override local Planning Authorities Planning Departments?

          Also mentioned are “stress tests”? Stress for who or what? Tests of what? Where is the documentation links and substantiated description of these “stress tests”? The only stress, seems to be on the English language being circumnavigated in order to avoid actually saying anything of any Real World value at all.

          Again, that is all doublespeak and Departmental health issues.

          Oh what a tangled web the government weave?

          Have a Nice Day.

    • That is the same aspect that I referred to earlier. That its not what is said, It’s what is not said in Andy Samuels bureaucratic comment “Our values remain the same while the organisation is adapting to meet the UK’s changing needs. We will continue our strong focus on value creation for government, the public and industry.”

      Since the there is no established parameters or explanation of the terms used, which makes the entire sentence, in effect, meaningless.

      For example. “Our values remain the same”. Who precisely is referred to by “Our”? Precisely which “values” are being referred to? Which of those “remains the same”? The same as what?

      Who is “We”? That single word has received far too much extremist stress already in this blog via certain sources.

      As for “We” will continue our strong focus on value creation for government, the public and industry.” That is also non-specific and unsubstantiated rhetoric, terms like “strong focus” “value creation” What in heaven’s name do those mean in precise unambiguous language? All unsubstantiated, and as Winston Churchill once said, comprises mostly of: “terminological inexactitudes”.

      Which amounts to little more than 1984 style “doublespeak” and reframing the narrative in an attempt to disarm the issues and revert to the usual “Bureaucratic Synonyms”.

      What you might call “substantiation abuse”, and subject to “departmental health”, if not “environmental abuse”….

      All grist t’mill, lad.

  2. I suspect the organization (OGA) has a previous statement which defines their values, for those who want to look.

    Usually, when an organization changes their name they state what remains the same-in this case, their values-which have been previously defined.

    Perhaps it is not so complicated as some would suggest.

  3. What an utterly bizarre name change, with precious little explanation or justification in the quotes. As an extreme cynic, this makes me very uneasy. As Phil C noted, it’s rather telling that they claim “We have not received any new regulatory responsibilities.” Who, therefore, will be regulating onshore geothermal development? It clearly needs to be done – but preferably not by a private company with a profit motive.

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 )

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