The new business secretary has formally reinstated the moratorium on fracking in England.
In a written ministerial statement (WMS), Grant Shapps overturned the previous lifting of the moratorium by the Liz Truss government last month.
The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, on his second day in office, had signalled that the moratorium would be restored.
The new WMS, issued on 27 October 2022, said:
“The Government are confirming today that we will again take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consents.
“This position, an effective moratorium, will be maintained until compelling new evidence is provided which addresses the concerns around the prediction and management of induced seismicity.
The moratorium had been introduced in November 2019 and included days later in the Conservative Party election manifesto.
The new WMS repeated the commitment made in 2019:
“The Government will therefore revert to a precautionary approach and only support shale gas exploration if it can be done in a way that is sustainable and protects local communities.
“We will be led by the evidence on whether this form of exploration can be done in a way which acceptably manages the risk to local communities.”
The WMS said:
“We will not support shale extraction unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”
Mr Shapps referred in the WMS to a scientific review by the British Geological Survey, which concluded that forecasting fracking-induced earthquakes and their magnitude remained a challenge. There was “significant uncertainty”, he said.
The WMS said the government would consider future applications for hydraulic fracturing consent on their merits. But it added:
“shale gas developers should take the Government’s position into account when considering new developments.”
IGas “reserves right to recover losses”
IGas, one of the four main shale gas licence holders in England, hinted this morning that it might take legal action against the government.
In a formal statement to investors, the company said it was “shocked and disappointed” that the UK Government had now formally announced another moratorium on fracking in England.
The company’s interim executive chairman, Chris Hopkinson, said IGas had “invested significant sums in the development of shale gas”, both before the 2019 moratorium and after it had been lifted by the previous government.
He said.
“These investments were made in the belief that we were unlocking a strategically important resource and providing energy security for the UK.
“We continue to believe and assert that fracking for shale gas can and will be done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.
“In light of the Government’s totally unwarranted U-turn and, in the interest of our shareholders, we reserve the right to pursue any legal process available to us to recover the losses that we have incurred.”
IGas had estimated there was 630 billion cubic feet of gas in place per square mile in the Gainsborough Trough in the East Midlands. Applied across IGas’s licences in the region, this would equate to up to 19 years of UK gas demand, it said.
Mr Hopkinson said:
“Shale could quickly provide cheaper gas to the UK, supporting strategic industries such as the UK steel industry and the emerging blue hydrogen economy, selling gas at a guaranteed contracted price well below European prices. Instead, we will now be tied into expensive imports of LNG for years to come at a time when other European countries are looking at domestic shale as part of their answer to high gas prices and energy security.”
“Government turning its back on shale gas industry”
Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said in a statement it “beggars belief” that thee government should reintroduce a moratorium on exploring for and producing shale gas during energy and cost of living crises:
“This new Government is turning its back on an industry that has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs across the North of England, generate billions in private sector investment, and provide local councils with much-needed tax revenue.”
Mr Egan said the new WMS “cements” a reliance on what he called “expensive, uncertain, and higher emission gas imports”. He said:
“North Sea gas production is in precipitous decline which may be slowed but cannot be stopped.
“By turning our back on our huge onshore gas resources, responsibility for this country’s ongoing gas supply has been transferred by politicians to the whims of dictators and the uncertainties of international supply lines and prices.
“The consequences of outsourcing energy supply are all too apparent, it’s a great shame that the political foresight and willpower to address this are currently lacking.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
This message from Friends Of The Earth – https://action.friendsoftheearth.uk/petition/demand-exit-from-energy-charter-treaty?user=*%7CURN_HASH%7C*
*’Stop fossil fuel companies obstructing climate action 27-10-2022’*
*’Did you know that fossil fuel companies can sue countries if environmental protections get in the way of their profits? Nations including the UK could be liable for billions just for trying to stop climate breakdown.
In the past few weeks countries including Germany, France and Spain have announced they’re leaving the dangerous treaty that created this ludicrous situation. Can you join the Europe-wide call for all countries to bin it? A million people already have!’*
‘*To: The UK government
Exit the Energy Charter Treaty today and stop its expansion to other countries. The treaty allows coal, oil and gas corporations to obstruct the transition to net zero. Urgent climate action cannot be made slower or more expensive by fossil fuel firms. ‘*
Please sign the petition – https://action.friendsoftheearth.uk/petition/demand-exit-from-energy-charter-treaty?user=*%7CURN_HASH%7C*
*’Yet our governments face extortionate legal action when taking action to protect the climate. Why? An agreement known as the *’Energy Charter Treaty. ‘*
*’The treaty allows fossil fuel companies to sue countries for many millions of pounds if environmental protections get in the way of their profits .’*
The UK alone could be liable for £12 billion on the path to net zero carbon emissions.
The treaty poses a major obstacle to climate justice, but we have a chance to exit it for good.
In November, the UK along with other countries will meet to decide the fate of the Energy Charter Treaty. So far, attempts for reform have fallen short. All countries must withdraw from the treaty to stop unfair protection for polluters’ profits.
Over a million people across Europe have asked their governments to withdraw from the treaty. Counties including Germany, France and Spain already have. Please sign this petition to demand the UK withdraws too. ‘*
Sad to see that ‘Fracking Frankie’ Egan persists in [edited by moderator] a futile attempt to drum up support for an industry conclusively rejected by the British people. The man could give lessons in duplicity and mendacity to Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss. Cuadrilla has all the probity of Putin assuring the world that Russia would never invade Ukraine. But with none of Putin’s charm.
In August the Italian Government was successfully sued by Rockhopper and fined £210m for preventing fossil fuel development in accordance with the Italian Government’s Climate Change commitments.
Our own governments have been made aware at least since the early days of opposition to fracking of the risks inherent particularly in the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) clauses inserted by industry in trade agreements under negotiation, whereby industry is able to sue states for legislation they claim adversely affects their profits, and in the Energy Charter Treaty, which works in a similar manner, advocated strongly by the British Government in the 90s as a component of Tory policy to favour industry over the people it governs and humanity at large.
My (unworthy) Schadenfreude over the irony of this heedless government’s predicament is tempered only by a realisation, that we, the tax payers, will be paying any fine levied.
Ahh, 1720, someone else who is aware of the Energy Charter Treaty!
Which has a long sunset clause that the Italians fell foul of.
The interesting thing about the ECT is that damages are not related to money invested. In the Rockhopper case it ended up many multiples. Which means that Rockhopper will have plenty of funds to invest in the Falklands.
The irony is that the Treaty was established to try and prevent developing nations, often previous colonies, from nationalizing assets and damaging investment that had been made by Western nations! The second irony is that with a new Government in Italy they are now looking to change their whole approach to energy security!
Yes, 1720 all those whopping with glee may just have produced a huge bill for the UK taxpayer. Bit like Wressle on steroids. Wonder if they will crowd fund to compensate?
If IGas “invested significant sums”….since the moratorium was lifted just a month ago, when it was clear that it hadn’t been proved safe and it was still subject to local consent, then MORE FOOLS THEM! More of the bullying bluster, we’ve come to expect from this industry.
Nope, alex, just more of the inaccurate information supplied by yourself. You have applied a timeline which is totally different from that reported by Ruth from the comment from IGAS. You have also failed to appreciate that the ECT is not just about money invested, but damages and interest.
All the more reason to sign the Friends Of The Earth petition to collectively and individually withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty in November then, isn’t it? That is one meeting that Rishi Sunak can’t ‘afford’ to miss. (‘ECTOUT22’?)
*’Simples’* (Deep Fake CGI ‘Meerkat’ adverts?) HaHa!
Nonsense, YYLee. The Treaty has a 20 year sunset clause. So, as Italy found out, you can withdraw but your obligations are not curtailed until many years later. Now FOE may be simple, but they need to read the detail. Exiting the treaty does not get countries off the hook, just a gesture to those who don’t do any research.
Perhaps when Treaties are established then those signing them should also check the detail? Maybe IGAS just need to wait 19 years so they can maximize interest!
No, not at all. No ‘nonsense’, Martin Frederick Collyer. Merely the required amount of research and linked and verified facts.
Whereas, I suggest you refer yourself to KatT’s post below – ‘October 28, 2022 at 2:00 pm’ which indicates that the fracking moratorium, recently dropped, and then reinstated again by Rishi Sunak, is to do with the earthquake damage caused by fracking (remember those discussions?). And not from environmental or protest actions. Which makes the UKOOG claims to be null and void in their intended actions.
You may also refer to the subsequent linked and documented research I provided in my reply, which indicates that the ‘sunset clause’ has already been dropped in the *’agreed to modernised Energy Charter Treaty’* by the United Kingdom government. Just try to scroll down a little. There, you see it? Just to recap, since you may have not seen it, here is a brief overview.
*’UK reaches ‘landmark’ agreement to modernise Energy Charter Treaty.
The modernised Energy Charter Treaty will ensure investments in new fossil fuel projects do not get legal protection and will instead have ‘a much stronger focus’ on promoting clean and affordable energy.’* – https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/06/27/uk-reaches-landmark-agreement-to-modernise-energy-charter-treaty/
There are other countries which have similar intentions. France, Germany and Spain and others are also agreeing to dispense with the Energy Charter Treaty. That will all be settled on the 22nd November 2022.
You have also forgotten Brexit. Refer to – https://drillordrop.com/2022/10/26/campaigners-welcome-u-turn-on-fracking-moratorium/comment-page-1/#comments – October 26, 2022 at 7:17 pm.
Perhaps you might also refer to Labour MP, Hilary Benn’s report that, Jacob Rees-Mogg wrote to him in the 13th October 2022. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IvaMHqkUZ8&ab_channel=PoliticsJOE
In which it becomes known that in the *’EU Retained Law Bill’*, such as the *’Energy Charter Treaty’*, that it was part of the EU laws statutes, conditions and bills and was entered into when the United Kingdom was still part of the European Union. Therefore, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s ‘dirty time bomb’ may not be so dirty after all in this particular respect? Since it was intended to simply drop these statutes, bills, regulations, conditions and perhaps treaties as well, from the new United Kingdom’s entire legal obligations books after December 2023. Therefore, it may well be the case that the sun will set on any ‘sunset clause’ in *’Energy Charter Treaty’* as well? Wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books?
*’The bill (the EU Retained Law Bill) will require departments, to remove, unnecessary and burdensome laws, which encumber business, and no longer meet the government’s policy objectives’*
I would surmise that Jacob Rees-Mogg did not intend this particular treaty to be a target of his *’EU Retained Law Bill’*. However, as a useful tool to swat down these intended rip-offs of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom by the fossil fuel companies, as it is said. – ‘Any port in a storm’.
Incidentally, you appear to be ‘whopping with glee’ to want to cost the United Kingdom taxpayer millions, if not billions of dollars?/pounds? In what is described by others as an attack of schadenfreude? Perhaps you don’t expect to be financially affected in your present location? Otherwise, shouldn’t you be fighting tooth and nail to stop such a travesty of justice by the fossil fuel companies?
Not so *’Simples’* after all is it?
What a lot of waffle, YYLee.
Italy had already withdrawn from the ECT but found the sunset clause applied, and it cost a lot of money as 1720 indicated. Now a new Treaty may be negotiated, or countries may withdraw, but the previous one will still apply to those who were committed during the previous one-unless compensation is paid to remove previous obligations.
It really is very simple, and no amount of your waffle will change that. You do seem to follow a distinct pattern in trying to manufacture fake news-but you are not very good at it.
Don’t try and blame me for Governments signing Treaties and then issuing licenses to companies authorizing activity then suspending that activity after the companies have made commitments. Perhaps the Treaties that protect companies should not be signed, or the authorization not given. Simples. Ironic, yes, as the Treaties were intended to stop developing nations ripping off European companies, and now being applied to those European nations!
What travesty of justice? I would prefer that INEOS were allowed to see if their investment into shale gas in UK is rewarded, rather than have to build ships over the horizon, to bring shale gas from over the horizon to UK and Europe. Maybe if that investment was not wiped off, they would have felt a car factory investment in UK was secure? So, INEOS have their ships, but not built in UK, they have their investment in USA, they have their car factory in Europe (and jobs and taxation are applied outside of UK) and UK has low growth, high taxation, low wages and very high energy costs compared to many competitors. I would not call that a travesty, simply inevitable, and resulting in hospitals being in need of repair and not getting that repair.
Perhaps it’s not a legal argument in court, but I would ask why IGas didn’t raise this before, ask what’s changed since the month of Truss rule. What they invested after her BS. They knew as well as we did her leadership would be short lived. If not they stand accused of idiocy. But what the heck? They win a long drawn out court case it won’t bring fracking back. So it costs the public purse a some money. A fraction of what other Tory policies have cost us.
The issue is is that fracking was stopped in 2019 for safety reasons because it caused a 2.9 trailing event, not for environmental reasons. The government stipulated the moratorium would only be lifted if the science proved it could be done safely and with minimal disturbance to local communities. The BGS report concluded there was no new science. The moratorium on fracking was a manifesto commitment that the Conservatives were elected on. So on that basis the public should be the ones suing the government if they had not kept the moratorium in place. Indeed a JR was submitted against the then Business Secretary JRM. In legal terms lifting the moratorium could possibly be seen as yet another ill thought through decision by the Truss government.
Ineos tried to sue the Scottish government and failed. The the courts might not be sympathetic to the fracking companies, given the basis for the moratorium.
The companies were aware that if fracking was to go ahead it would only do so with local consent and nothing had been determined about how that would be gauged. And during the turmoil of Truss’s thirty odd working days in Downing Street (excluding the period of national mourning and the party conference break) numerous councils formerly voted to oppose fracking, so the companies will have known full well local consent may not have been obtained.
The government can of course legitimately change planning policy that would deliver a de facto ban, without having to cite environmental or scientific reasons.
An excellent and well-thought-out point, KatT. You are correct, of course. It would still be worth withdrawing from the Energy Charter Treaty in November 22nd, though.
*’What is the Energy Charter Treaty and why do we need to exit?
By: Jean Blaylock
Date: 24 June 2022’* – https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2022/06/energy-charter-treaty/
Apparently there have already been moves by the United Kingdom government to remove the costs of the ‘sunset clause’ so that there will be no compensation to fossil fuel companies at all. The withdrawals of the countries out of the Energy Charter Treaty will still go ahead in November 22nd.
*’UK reaches ‘landmark’ agreement to modernise Energy Charter Treaty.’*
*’The modernised treaty will ensure investments in new fossil fuel projects do not get legal protection and will instead have ‘a much stronger focus’ on promoting clean and affordable energy.’* – https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/06/27/uk-reaches-landmark-agreement-to-modernise-energy-charter-treaty/
Other countries are shown in these links –
*’France becomes latest country to leave controversial energy charter treaty’*
*’Quitting the ECT, which protects fossil fuel investors from policy changes that might threaten their profits, was ‘coherent’ with Paris climate deal, Macron said.’* – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/21/france-becomes-latest-country-to-leave-controversial-energy-charter-treaty
*’European exodus from Energy Charter Treaty raises climate questions
Published on 25/10/2022, 5:28pm’*
*’France, Germany and Spain plan to leave the controversial investment pact, putting a whole system of dirty energy protections into play’* – https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/10/25/european-exodus-from-energy-charter-treaty-raises-climate-questions/
It looks as if IGas interim executive chairman, Chris Hopkinson, will have a much harder job of seeking any compensation in any means or excuse, than he has said. Perhaps none at all. I can’t see such a blatant attempt to rip off the United Kingdom will go down as anything less than a natural gas filled lead balloon with this tottery government or the public anyway.
KatT: Well said.
HaHa! No. Sorry, to disappoint you once again, Martin Frederick Collyer, (Referring to your misplaced misinformed post above on October 29, 2022 at 9:58 am). That is not true at all. If you can’t produce any facts to support your silly, meaningless accusations, then I don’t see why anyone would take any notice of anything you say in that regard.
Do try to keep up with the facts and dispense with your inherent embarrassment speculations.
Your ‘waffle’ has been discredited for days now. But you won’t address that. Instead, you attempt to argue endlessly over one single aspect of the already modernised sunset clause, on which the government has already agreed to dispense with – *’UK reaches ‘landmark’ agreement to modernise Energy Charter Treaty. That ends, by mutual agreement, the ‘sunset clauses’.
The modernised Energy Charter Treaty will ensure investments in new fossil fuel projects *’do not get legal protection’* and will instead have *‘a much stronger focus’* on promoting clean and affordable energy.’* – https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/06/27/uk-reaches-landmark-agreement-to-modernise-energy-charter-treaty/
The inevitable conclusion to that fact renders your claims incapable of holding water, let alone fracked gas for that matter. Therefore, once again, all the attendant waffle primarily and singularly derives solely from your own complaints, as has always been the case in your posts.
Please attempt to explain how you describe clear and verified linked facts as ‘waffle? Or is everyone to understand that, if you call something ‘waffle’ or ‘nonsense’ or ‘rubbish’, or ‘conspiracy theory’ you are actually referring to facts that you have no answer for? Now that is far closer to the truth than you have managed to impart so far, isn’t it.
In fact (oh dear, another fact you will have trouble with) as KatT has very cleverly pointed out and described below this post (I pointed you towards that in my previous post, but you ignored it as usual). I notice you don’t post there, and attempt to call that ‘waffle’, because you know you can’t prove anything you say, and you know it will be a factual response that you will receive in reply.
I will attempt to educate you once again, since you appear not to be able to understand any facts that are put before you.
The fossil fuel companies have utterly failed to produce any successful fracking operations in ten years. Instead, the one time that was a supposedly serious attempt by Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site in Lancashire, to carry out a fracking operation, in spite of all the scientific and geological evidence that had already been provided to the effect that the fracking operation would only result in earthquakes. That was ignored and the local peoples properties and lives were put at risk.
What happened, at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site in Lancashire, however, was a series of earthquakes that caused damage to many local properties, and no natural gas produced. Not only that, Cuadrilla concealed the fact that there had been many more earthquakes than they had admitted to. But sought to hide them from the government. It was those 2.3/2.9 Magnitude level on the Richter scale (remember that the Richter scale is incapable of defining the damage level effects to properties, and needs to be replaced with the Mercalli scale which does measure the structural damage effects on properties) It was the earthquakes that brought about the fracking moratorium. Not the government or the people in Great Britain, or anyone else but themselves. The fossil fuel organisations, therefore, caused their own downfall in the shape of the fracking earthquakes, which in turn caused fracking moratorium.
That was briefly lifted by Liz Truss and then reinstated a few days later by Rishi Sunak. I doubt there was any ‘investment’ carried out by any of the tearful fossil fuel companies in that short time anyway.
No profits, no loss.
In fact, as KatT also pointed out later, it was the fossil fuel companies that failed to carry out any operations of any significance in many of the PEDLE’s they were paid to carry out in their contracts. Therefore, it is quite within this new-new government’s rights to sue those very same fossil fuel companies for failure to fulfil their contracts.
Then of course, there are also the facts of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s EU Retained Law Bill ‘dirty time bomb’ in which it is attempted to drop every law, statute, and everything else which will fall foul of the conditions as defined *’The bill (the EU Retained Law Bill) will require departments, to remove, unnecessary and burdensome laws, which encumber business, and no longer meet the government’s policy objectives’* which still stands after December 2023.
Also I have educated you only too clearly, the moves by countries such as France, Germany and Spain and now several others are also agreeing to comprehensively dispense with the ‘Energy Charter Treaty’. That will all be settled on the 22nd November 2022. If fossil fuel companies wish to attempt to sue all of them at once over the dead duck of already dropped ‘sunset clauses’, then they will meet a universal and very expense period of maybe 20 years of interminable coordinated and individual court cases from a united front. After which, well, you know the rest.
As I have said on so many occasions with your fact free comments, you can call anything anyone says to be unfounded ‘waffle’ or ‘nonsense’ or ‘rubbish’, or ‘conspiracy theory’. But it doesn’t make it the truth. Nor does it seek to provide evidence that anything said by others is not the truth and the proven verified linked and document proof.
I suggest that in any reply, you provide linked and documented proof to any of the silly accusations you attempt to paint on all the clearly stated educational facts in lieu of any constructive balanced and unemotional discussion. Absence of any proof in your posts, only goes to show just how little those emotional responses actually represent anything real in the world of facts and verified data.
More waffle, YYLee.
Italy had already withdrawn from the Treaty but was found to be responsible for actions after having done so.
Those are facts. You can check them for yourself. Others on this site have done so, not only myself.
You have not educated me at all. I already knew countries were looking to leave the Treaty. I already knew that Italy had. I already knew that Italy had been instructed to pay damages and interest after having done so. I already knew how fake news is constructed. Sorry, you may educate/fool others, but I am too educated for that. Your previous silly contrived waffle about hospitals in need of repair rather gave your game away.
HaHa! Your inevitable evasion of the truth is mere sophistry, Martin Frederick Collyer. You provide no proof, no facts and no excuses. As soon as you try to excuse yourself by writing ‘waffle’ or any other silly word, all that means is that you are attempting to conceal and evade the facts I have educated you with.
Facts are apparently something which you cannot handle.
I say again, as I have always done so, I can prove anything I say, and I have always done so on every occasion with verification, links and documents. I can prove everything I say to you again anytime you please, or even if you don’t please.
No. You are wrong. Once again, it was the fossil fuel companies that failed to produce any gas in ten years and Cuadrilla at Preston New Road that caused the fracking earthquakes that caused the fracking moratorium in the first place. Therefore, the fossil fuel companies are to blame for their own consequences, no one else. No court of law will support a ‘sunset clause’ on the basis of operational incompetence and causing dangers to the local residents properties and lives. In fact, it gives the local residents a very good opportunity to counter sue the offending fossil fuel companies along with the government for causing danger to life and limb by ignoring the science and geological facts, and for failing to fulfil their contracts. Contracts and treaties work both ways.
Not only that, but, I have already educated you with the announcement that *’UK reaches ‘landmark’ agreement to modernise Energy Charter Treaty.
France, Germany and Spain and now several others are also agreeing to comprehensively dispense with the ‘Energy Charter Treaty’. *’The modernised Energy Charter Treaty will ensure investments in new fossil fuel projects *’do not get legal protection’* and will instead have *‘a much stronger focus’* on promoting clean and affordable energy.’* – https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/06/27/uk-reaches-landmark-agreement-to-modernise-energy-charter-treaty/
All that the United Kingdom needs to do is to agree to drop the Energy Charter Treaty in co-ordination with the other countries. Any hesitation will cost the British tax payer dearly and will negate Rishi Sunaks environmental and financial standing. That will then end, by mutual agreement, the ‘sunset clauses’. Which will all be agreed settled and become law on the 22nd November 2022.
Then of course, there are also the facts of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s EU Retained Law Bill ‘dirty time bomb’ in which it is attempted to drop every law, statute, and everything else which will fall foul of the conditions as defined *’The bill (the EU Retained Law Bill) will require departments, to remove, unnecessary and burdensome laws, which encumber business, and no longer meet the government’s policy objectives’* which still stands after December 2023. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IvaMHqkUZ8&ab_channel=PoliticsJOE
As for the truth and facts of the 34 hospitals, schools, private and public buildings that are already in danger of imminent structural collapse, even before there was any danger (now removed) from any further much worse earthquakes caused by discredited fracking. You are wrong again. The dangers to the occupants of which appear to mean absolutely nothing to you. Shame on you.
The previously established fracking moratorium, which was lifted for a few days by Liz Truss, and now reinstated by Rishi Sunak, would have spelled structural collapse for those hospitals, schools, public and private buildings. Those buildings still exist in reality, contrary to your denials, and are still in danger of structural collapse, in spite of your refusal to admit to the facts. I gave you the proof and educated you of those facts. But of course, any proven and verified facts are totally lost to you. That would be laughable, if it wasn’t so serious to life and limb. Instead, it indicates a total lack of care and concern for human life on your part.
I am sorry that you have tied yourself up into such a self-contradictory, disrespectful of the truth, opinionated mess. You show a very apparent fury at having lost the fracking argument big time, hence all this waffle you pour out rather than make a constructive case.
It’s so destructive of your discredited opinion, that you resort to ‘whopping with glee’ at the remote prospect of the frantic fossil fuel companies attempts to rip off the government and the people of the United Kingdom in an already modernised and removed ‘sunset clause’. Spitefulness and attempts at revenge for their own incompetence are toxic bedfellows. Which will all end in tears. Their tears. The public will then see them for what they are. Enemies of the country and of the planet.
Your similar attempted denials and silly accusations won’t work and don’t convince anyone either. But merely indicate a very infantile attempt to throw yours, and the fossil fuel companies collective toys out of the pram.