Liz Truss did not mention fracking in her speech to the Conservative conference in Birmingham. But leading campaigners from Greenpeace heckled over the party’s U-turn on the moratorium on fracking.
5 October 2022. Photo: From conference feed
Rebecca Newsom, the Greenpeace head of public affairs, and Ami McCarthy, its policy officer, unrolled a banner reading “who voted for this”.
The activists were quickly ejected from the hall after the prime minister said: “let’s get them removed”.
Outside the meeting, Ms Newsom said:
“Who voted for what Liz Truss and her cabinet are trying to roll out across the country. Nobody voted for fracking, nobody voted to trash nature, nobody voted to slash workers rights. There’s a whole host of things that the Conservatives were elected to do in 2019, they are simply not doing. Liz Truss doesn’t have the public mandate to do this”.
Liz Truss’s 35-minute speech did mention the offshore oil and gas industry. But there was no reference to fracking or onshore shale gas.
The prime minister announced a lifting on the moratorium on fracking in England last month. A fortnight later, her business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, confirmed the move in a statement.
The issue has prompted anger among Conservative MPs in some shale gas areas, as well as fracking opponents.
Just before the conference, Liz Truss told local radio that fracking must be with local consent.
At a conference fringe meeting, Mr Rees-Mogg appeared to rule out local referendums as a way of gauging consent. He suggested that shale gas companies could canvass door-to-door for support.
This evening, the Politics Home website reported that some Tory MPs suspected that fracking plans could be “quietly shelved”. It said there was
“a growing belief that the government’s plans to boost fracking could be quietly shelved has emerged at Conservative party conference in Birmingham after Tory MPs and activists expressed opposition to the plans”.
Updated to include reporting by Politics Home
DRILL OR DROP? 
I don’t think l have heard such a vacuous speech from a prime minister.
Not only was there very little content, Ms Truss showed no self-awareness or humour.
Even the group who recorded Moving On Up, which was used as introductory music, are furious. The song’s lyrics aren’t very encouraging: ‘… go and pack your bags and get out’.
At least we were spared Theresa May ‘dancing’.
Nice Banner, Is that Oil Based Paint!! snarf, snarf!!
Who voted for Greenpeace?
No one.
Which is why they have to gate crash gatherings for those who were voted for.
MARTIN ,
Who voted for Liz Truss ???????
ANSWER , 81,326 people out of a population of 68,686,295
With an approval rating , lower than a snakes belly ( 14 % ) .
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/05/liz-truss-already-less-popular-boris-johnson-ever-
I would kindly , respectfully ask that she listen to MP’s within her own party and the people of the UK.
WE SAY NO TO FRACKING
Jack , The people who voted for Liz Truss were the good people of SW Norfolk. The PM is the person asked by the monarch to form a government, usually the leader of of the majority party. Popularity polls mean nothing between elections.
The government is reported in the Guardian to be preparing for a public information campaign to reduce energy use because of the gas supply emergency. Fracking might (we haven’t tried yet) increase local gas supply. It will certainly be greener than imported LNG.
Wind and solar power are weather dependent and therefore unreliable.
GET GOING ON FRACKING and in the meantime, wrap up warm.
80,000 approx Tory party members voted for Truss to be party leader and therefore PM. 60,000 approx voted against.
Fracking has been tried here. It failed.
Given market vagaries, it cannot directly increase local gas supply.
How can you possibly know that it is/ would be “greener than imported LNG”., or that it would be reliable in the U.K.
Assemble the facts, think for yourself; don’t be led by the ignorant.
Shalewatcher: But even the exploratory fracking at PNR has been very far from green. The methane release (we know about) at PNR has been the equivalent to 142 trans-atlantic flights:
https://drillordrop.com/2020/10/29/methane-release-at-cuadrillas-fracking-site-equivalent-to-142-trans-atlantic-flights-study/
Dr Frank, The U.K. is currently importing LNG from across the world. LNG has become an increasing part of our vital energy supply. I note that we import LNG from Australia, Qatar and the USA. In this process gas is frozen to minus 160 degrees, shipped , sometimes literally half way across the world then unloaded, unfrozen and piped into the gas grid system I wonder how many transatlantic flights that amounts to compared to home harvested gas.
I cannot see why people cannot see that in the present desperate energy situation, which will likely last into 2024 at least, has reached a point where we have no sensible alternative on the supply side than to pursue fracking as a source of supply. It will be cheaper, greener and quicker to develop than any other reliable source of energy if the BGS survey of the East Midlands in particular, is correct.
Shalewatcher, may I suggest that you do more thorough research on the emissions associated with LNG. It is not as straightforward as often quoted.
Firstly, if the U.K. we’re to frack, unless the production of global LNG reduced, all that would happen is that there would be more gas produced in the world, more gas is burned so more climate damage occurs. It is unlikely a major gas producer would lower production because the U.K. produced shale gas, the gas would just be shipped elsewhere. The more gas available may also contribute to slowing down the essential transition to green energy.
Some LNG is now being produced by use of renewable energy, reducing its carbon footprint. A lot can depend on methods of production and country of origin.
The world has more existing gas/fossil fuel reserves than we could ever safely burn if we are to avoid climate breakdown. Developing new gas reserves or any new fossil fuel reserves will lead to climate breakdown.
Click to access 89490%20SGUK%20Low%20Carbon%20Transition.pdf
Having seen the replies to your point about not seeing, Shalewatcher, then it would appear that those who cannot see don’t know what to look for. A number of just incorrect statements in response, from apparently intelligent people. Either insufficient research or a hope they will fool others into not researching themselves. For example, UK can control how much it exports of anything it produces. OPEC+ have just announced that they will do so for oil, although it has been common on this site to state that production cannot be controlled and once a well is drilled it means more oil! In USA there are already calls to once again limit exports of gas, as LNG, as they want their domestic price reduced, so LNG supplies may indeed be reduced. Supplies from somewhere that are beyond your control are not secure. In the current situation it is just ridiculous to ignore that.
For gas, that UK can only export through pipelines to Europe, who desperately need gas to replace Russian gas, is anyone seriously suggesting that should be limited and thus assist Putin? It is already limited by the capacity of the pipelines anyway. And the two new ships just ordered by the UK to protect such structures shows how secure they may be.
More renewables, fine. But more renewables to be a quick solution? No. Having more will not make the sunshine or the wind blow, it will just mean more stranded assets when that doesn’t happen, so more renewables needs the backup from more nuclear, and/or fusion. That is ignored because when it is taken into account then the cheap part of the renewable argument goes out the window. Like buying a “cheap” horse and then finding you have to buy some land and a stables!
I can quite understand the arguments about how successful UK fracking might be, but when the arguments branch off into fiction it would appear there is concern amongst some that it may be successful. Otherwise, why branch off into fiction?
What waffle Martin. I’m not sure whether you are replying to me but unfortunately, and as usual, you allude to statements I have not made. I’m not sure whether you missed my points, misunderstood or it is just obfuscation.
The points I have made are referenced and correct.
Good try KatT.
You speculated upon the international gas market, with no validity to do so. UK production of fossil fuel is already reducing energy bills, KatT. You have been reminded of that several times and still trot out the same fake information that energy bills will not be reduced. They already are. There are cries to tax more to make the reduction larger. My £67 for this month is on the way.
The supply of gas has already very significantly reduced as sanctions have been applied to Russia. That is why OAPs are desperately worried about this winter. That is why the price has escalated. Current supply has dropped, price has risen. That may be waffle to you KatT, but to others who know what to look for they can see what is happening with gas supply due to the conflict in Ukraine.
And guess who are trying to make the situation less painful? US frackers! Gas there $7, when shipped to Europe $47. So, US not gaining from their local production? Their output just sold off to the highest bidder?
The points you make are remote from what is currently happening. You might find there are a lot more people who are aware of what is currently happening, especially the bit about lowered availability of gas increasing gas price.
Nonsense frank
Shalewatcher, fracking certainly won’t be helping this winters energy supply, not even for a decade according to the respected views of Wood Mackenzie. And that is of course if fracking is viable in the U.K, which is still uncertain. In addition, fracking will not lower gas prices.
If it was not for renewables we would be using even more expensive gas. The more renewables we develop, the better we insulate our homes, the less gas we require, the more our bills go down, the more greenhouse gases go down and our energy security improves.
Renewables free us from the volatility of world gas markets and the geopolitics. No doubt you saw OPEC has decided to reduce oil production, despite the global energy crisis?
The gas from the North Sea has not lowered energy prices and any gas extracted in the U.K. is owned by the companies and sold at market price. We no longer have sufficient gas reserves to be gas energy independent as we once were, according to experts. Nor should we be aiming for that if we want to help avoid climate breakdown and meet our net zero limits. Although we may require gas for some time it will be a greatly reduced amount and must be used with CCS.
Renewables, storage and nuclear are the way forward.
Shalewatcher you should realize by now that Jack hasn’t a clue what happens as routine in UK.
Listen to MPs in her own party? Yes, speak up, Moggy.
At least she has 81, 324 more than voted for Gordon!
OH DEAR MARTIN ,
You have two Fracking supporters in Westminster and on their present trajectory their looking more like the ships captain and first officer aboard the Titanic every day ……. Demanding that the band play the music louder to drown out the screams of despair from the crew and public .
Can you not hear them shouting , WE SAY NO to Fracking .
Nope.
Your arithmetic is up to the usual anti standard, Jack.
Just like the 1+1 nonsense about transfer of production. And today OPEC+ announce they will cut production by 2m barrels, which can’t happen according to the antis as production cuts cannot be made when new local production starts. So, the 2m barrels can’t happen and Alice will play with the Mad Hatter.
[Edited by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
MARTIN ,
This is the uncomfortable , nursery school arithmetic that I’m sure you’ll have difficulty with .
In this documentary , there are plenty of rising sea level numbers for you to count on your fingers and toes .
Remember , FRACKING is a major contributor to global warming.
EARTH UNDER WATER
If you care about your grandchildren future, this will be of great concern to you .
[Edited by modeator]
My grandchildren, like most grandchildren, use more fossil fuel than I do. On top of that, what they decide as they grow older will be beyond my control. The one who is approaching 2 already knows a lot more about feeding pigeons than some who try and misinform on anti social media, so he has a head start. I would hope by 3 he knows a bit more about how PMs in UK are elected than a few adults.
Usual excuse, trying to use others who have not agreed to any connection, as, well, an excuse. Your choice Jack, take responsibility.
But where I can most help my grandchildren is to advise them about the dangers of being controlled by an algorithm and be able to look at all the information. I shall do my best to help them but avoid scaring them regarding electricity distribution and forest fires as both are fond of forests.
Too late for some adults(?) who have joined the dark side. Perhaps when many experience the dark side this winter it will enlighten some.
MARTIN 🤣🤣
A load of ” twaddle ” you say .
Don’t tell me it’s MARTIN the astrobiologist now , WOW are there no limits to your knowledge??????
MARTIN , people that care about the future of their grandchildren and the planet are working hard to change things now .
Fracking is a highly toxic , climate changing , environmental disaster . You should be happy that people like JACK are helping others understand this fact .
Not sure how you are helping others understand anything Jack when you are ignored. Bit of an oxymoron within your post.
Now, I am happy to see another one and when others stumble upon such, I am indeed happy that Jack is helping them to understand. What their understanding is, will be up to them, but I suspect the majority will certainly understand. Those who suffered Covid in 2020 will understand it was not a normal year, those who visit the NT properties will understand they are members to get a discount, not to agree with any management policy of the organisation, and there is so much more for them to understand. But I suspect most will understand so rapidly they will just then ignore.
MARTIN ,
[Edited by moderator]
We are all delighted and very happy at the FIRM two finger salute , the National Trust gave the Fracking industry .
Like I said , NOBODY WANTS FRACKING.
“We are all”.
Good try. Is that the legal team who were paid to defend the indefensible two fingers, even though they were chopped off?
Yes, I am sure they were delighted. However, it would appear those under the banner of Restore Trust are not so delighted with such poor management using up members funding.
HAHA MARTIN
Remember …….. the second largest landowner in the UK and only by a Cats Whisker , the National Trust are Firmly against Fracking 😊
Along with MP’s of all parties and the majority of the general public.
That’s good enough for me old chap .
I will continue to work hard to inform the public of the toxic dangers of Fracking , like this .
From the world famous , HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH .
Living near or downwind of unconventional oil and gas development linked with increased risk of early death
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220127114329.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,likely%20contributing%20to%20increased%20mortality.
Your thoughts MARTIN , for the readers
, or will you pretend you’ve not seen the above LINK ???
Thanks for the Manchester University paper, KatT. I had not seen that.
March 2022 Kwasi Kwarteng
“….no amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon.
“And with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price.”
Seems a good answer to those who for reasons of their own assert that shale gas is the answer.
Not really 1720 as that is already out of date!