Opponents of new drilling for oil and gas have criticised the prime minister’s promise to grant “hundreds” of new licences.
A former Conservative minister said the announcement put Rishi Sunak on the wrong side of the economy and history.
In a statement today, the government and the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), made a joint commitment to undertake future licensing rounds.
It said the rounds would be subject to a climate compatibility test, which aims to ensure new production is in line with the UK’s goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 but have been criticised by environmental campaigners.
Downing Street said licensing would “slow the rapid decline in domestic production of oil and gas” and “secure our domestic energy supply and reduce reliance on hostile states”.
NSTA is currently assessing 115 bids received for licences in the 33rd oil and gas licensing round. It said today the licences would be awarded later in the year.
The energy secretary Grant Shapps tweeted:
“Today we are saying no to @JustStop_Oil and their political wing the Labour Party
“We will power ahead with new oil and gas because it’s in the best interests of the British people, of our economy and of our national security”
Today we are saying no to @JustStop_Oil and their political wing the Labour Party
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) July 31, 2023
We will power ahead with new oil and gas because it’s in the best interests of the British people, of our economy and of our national security pic.twitter.com/KO8zujUkdM
Last month, the government’s climate change advisor accused ministers of “backtracking on fossil fuel commitments”.
The Climate Change Committee’s annual report to parliament on government progress said:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero. As well as pushing forward strongly with new low-carbon industries, Net Zero also makes it necessary to move away from high-carbon developments.
“The decision on the Cumbrian coal mine sent a very concerning signal on the Government’s priorities. The UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches Net Zero, but this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields.”
The CCC has previously said: “Any increases in UK extraction of oil and gas would have, at most, a marginal effect on the prices faced by UK consumers in future.”
Reaction
Chris Skidmore, the Conservative MP and reviewer of the government’s net zero strategy, said:
“This is the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time, when the rest of the world is experiencing record heat waves. It is on the wrong side of a future economy that will be founded on renewable and clean industries and not fossil fuels.
“It is on the wrong side of modern voters who will vote with their feet at the next general election for parties that protect, and not threaten, our environment, and it is on the wrong side of history, that will not look favourably on the decision taken today.”
Mr Skidmore also criticised the announcement at a time when parliament was in recess because ministers could not be held to account. He said he would call an emergency debate when MPs returned after the summer.
Labour has promised it would not grant new oil and gas licences. The shadow climate secretary, Ed Miliband, said:
“Every family and business is paying the price, in higher energy bills, of 13 years of failed Tory energy policy. It is absurd that having left this country so exposed, the Conservative party is asking the public to believe they can fix it.
“And it’s telling that while Labour focuses on lower bills and good jobs, Rishi Sunak lurches desperately towards a culture war on climate to appease his split party, losing track of what he believes from day to day, depending on which faction he’s met with.
“It’s no way to govern and it’s costing working people.”
Philip Evans, of Greenpeace UK Climate, said:
“This new announcement is nothing but a cynical political ploy to sow division, and the climate is collateral damage. Just as wildfires and floods wreck homes and lives around the world, Rishi Sunak’s government has decided to row back on key climate policies, attempted to toxify net zero, and recycled old myths about North Sea drilling.
“Relying on fossil fuels is terrible for our energy security, the cost of living, and the climate. Our sky-high bills and recent extreme weather have demonstrated that. Rishi Sunak knows that any oil and gas from the North Sea will just be sold on the international market, making oil companies even richer at the expense of the rest of us. How will this help our bills exactly?
“If Sunak were serious about boosting our energy security while keeping energy bills down, he’d remove the absurd barriers holding back cheap, homegrown renewables and launch a nationwide insulation programme to tackle energy waste in our homes.”
Oxfam climate policy adviser, Lyndsay Walsh, said:
“Extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea will send a wrecking ball through the UK’s climate commitments at a time when we should be investing in a just transition to a low-carbon economy and our own abundant renewables.”
Friends of the Earth head of policy, Mike Childs, said:
“Climate change is already battering the planet with unprecedented wildfires and heatwaves across the globe. Granting hundreds of new oil and gas licences will simply pour more fuel on the flames, while doing nothing for energy security as these fossil fuels will be sold on international markets and not reserved for UK use.
“If the government were serious about energy security it would invest in a nationwide street by street home insulation programme, focussing first on the communities that need it most. This would slash gas consumption, reduce energy bills, and help meet UK climate targets.
“Rishi Sunak’s international credibility is on the line. He promised other world leaders the UK would cut carbon by more than two thirds by 2030. His recent announcements on energy and transport look as though he is reneging on the UK’s commitments. The Prime Minister should stop playing politics with young people’s futures and build the safe, clean economy we urgently need.”
Friends of the Earth Scotland’s head of campaigns, Mary Church, said:
“Burning oil and gas is driving extreme weather and killing people on every continent yet Rishi Sunak is gleefully encouraging the arsonists to go and put more fuel on the fire.”
“By ignoring the huge harm caused by fossil fuel company greed and doing bidding of the industry, the UK Government is blatantly in denial about climate breakdown.”
The Green Party co-leader, Carla Denyer, said:
“Today’s announcement from the Prime Minister appears to be nothing more than a cynical attempt to stoke division at the expense of both the climate and people across the country who are already struggling with rising living costs. Such an announcement, as evidence of climate breakdown is all around us and shortly after the UN Secretary-General has said we are in an era of ‘climate boiling’, makes Sunak nothing short of a climate criminal. To say we need to burn more fossil fuels from the North Sea in order to meet net zero by 2050 is blatant greenwash.”
Carbon intensity and CCS
The government also announced north east Scotland and the Humber had been chosen as locations for two new carbon capture usage and storage clusters. This could support up to 50,000 jobs, the government statement said.
The government has now committed to providing up to £20 billion of funding for early deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage
Mary Church described carbon capture as “little more than a greenwashing tactic by big oil to try and keep their climate-wrecking industry in business”. She said:
“CCS has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering yet both the Scottish and UK Governments have fallen for the snake oil salesmen rather than face reality that the only solution to the climate crisis is a fast and fair phase out of oil and gas.
“Funding for the Acorn project [near Aberdeen] is yet another massive public subsidy to oil companies like Shell who have been making billions in profits, while ordinary people are struggling to pay the bills.
“Instead of handing more money to polluters, it is time to redirect that investment to climate solutions that we know can deliver emissions cuts and improve peoples’ lives today – such as improving public transport and insulating people’s homes to help with energy bills.”
Today’s announcements also coincided with a press release from the NSTA, which said its analysis showed North Sea gas is significantly cleaner and supports the drive to net zero greenhouse gas emissions far more than imports.
It said carbon intensity (the weight of carbon from producing a barrel of oil equivalent was 21kg CO2/boe, compared with an average of 79kg CO2/boe for imports.
Carbon intensity from production of oil and gas is much lower than downstream emissions from the use of the hydrocarbons. Downstream emissions from onshore oil production was the subject of a legal challenge heard at the Supreme Court last month.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Let’s hope we can start Fracking
“Carbon intensity from production of oil and gas is much lower than downstream emissions from the use of the hydrocarbons. ”
Ruth, the relevant comparison for the downstream emissions from natural gas is (please check) around 300 kg/boe. So the roughly 60kg/boe saving from UK gas vs imports is about 20% of downstream emissions. Is that insignificant? It would be nice to avoid the kind of inflexible thinking that stalled the UK’s nuclear alternative.
The NSTA page on this makes interesting reading:
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2020/north-sea-gas-has-lower-carbon-footprint-than-imported-lng/
Look beyond the headline, and you’ll see that gas imported from Norway has a lower carbon footprint than gas supplied from the UK continental shelf (18 kgCO2e/boe versus 22 kgCO2e/boe) – NSTA concedes that this suggests more could be done to reduce emissions from UK operations
Norway supplies around 70% of our imported gas
(ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/trendsinukimportsandexportsoffuels/2022-06-29#:~:text=Norway%20is%20typically%20the%20UK's,the%20United%20States%20and%20Russia.)
with most of the rest coming from LNG, which has an average carbon footprint of 59 kgCO2e/boe
So a rough back of the envelope calculation – 1 boe of imported gas has a footprint of:
[from Norway](70%*18)+[from LNG](30%*59) = 30.3 kg CO2
So each boe of imported gas in the current mix has a footprint which is 8.3kg larger than for UK gas – not 60kg as suggested above.
Downstream emissions from combusting 1boe of natural gas is around 320kg (see footnote on page 9 of this IEA report – https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/743af33c-b2f5-4a93-a925-1b08f6438e61/EmissionsfromOilandGasOperationinNetZeroTransitions.pdf
Hi Paul, and thanks for a constructive reply! But you are using numbers from a 3 year old NSTA report, whereas Ruth (and I) are getting them from the latest one. I think it best we stick to the latest report as the landscape changed drastically in 2022, as a result of russia/ukraine. We are now importing vastly increased amounts of LNG and piping it to europe (even in winter when we normally use the pipes in reverse.) The fact sheet linked at the bottom of the latest report is quite revealing on that score:
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/the-move-to-net-zero/net-zero-benchmarking-and-analysis/natural-gas-carbon-footprint-analysis/
One potential confusion you point out though is whether the 79kg refers to total imports or just LNG imports. You may be right that there is a typo there. However, I was assuming it meant LNG imports anyway, as that would be the highest emission target that we’d want to displace. In which case, the 22kg vs 79kg comparison is the important one.
Of course it would be good to improve the 22kg as you say. But we can’t assume Norway has an infinite supply of lower emissions gas, and we can’t overlook the fact that the main reason they have that copious and efficient supply is that they INVEST in it. And as Martin has pointed out, they reap the tax from it whereas we don’t.
Both Norway and UK are extracting gas and oil from the same bit of the world. Theirs over their side, ours over our side.
Unless you are Norwegian, why would any person in UK feel importing their bit better than using our bit?
I do like Norway, and the Norwegians, and when/if they have gas/oil and UK have used all of our bit, then they are the logical place to buy more from. Until then, the situation is different.
I prefer Norwegian farmed salmon to UK salmon, as it is different to me. Gas and oil, the other way round.
I do admire the constant nonsense about Shell!
Yes, it is making £billions in profit. Why? Because there is a demand for their products.
Shell is not making much money from UK, but mainly from overseas. People in UK are struggling with energy bills as UK is importing energy that could be produced in UK and taxed in UK, to then help people with energy bills! The double whammy, is that imported energy also drastically impacts the Balance of Payments that then reduces the value of Sterling so cost of most other things that are imported are hiked upwards, as are cost of holidays.
There is no fast fair phase out for oil and gas. It takes around 30 years to build a nuclear power station. Perhaps that issue should have been addressed many years ago? Even a two year old knows that the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun has a habit of being behind clouds for much of the year in UK. Wheat for E10 petrol makes motoring more expensive and also makes cost of food more expensive.
“Strange” this reality is not even mentioned. Meanwhile, Centrica sign a 15 year supply contract for LNG from USA for 1m tonnes per year starting 2027, and Norway approves $18B in new oil/gas investments.
My house is already energy efficient, yet my energy bills still escalated dramatically last year. Maybe it had more to do with gas peaking at $47/MMBtu on the Dutch TTF whilst it peaked at $7/MMBtu on the Henry Hub, and in USA they stated:
“Although relatively elevated for the (US) domestic market, US and European price differences are so wide, producing and shipping US gas across the Atlantic, even allowing for the pricey liquefaction process is still economically advantageous.”
(To USA not Europe!)
Silly me, another piece of insulation in a well insulated house would have changed that!
The real snake oil salespersons are those who are shown by costs people are having to fund, and come out with just more of the same nonsense.
Own it.
PURE COLLYWAFFLE , don’t give us those crocodile tears pretending you care about the fuel bills of UK citizens…… Your more than happy to expose them to the highly toxic ” PROVEN ” dangers of Fracking.
Again I ask, what about Fracking THE DIRTY DOZEN , when can we discuss number ONE on the list … The proven risks of CANCER ?
In 30 years time on the present trajectory of burning fossil fuels , climate change will be out of control.
People that promoted the continued , uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels will be despised by our grandchildren.
Just take a look at the disaster unfolding right NOW
This is a global problem that needs a global solution , RIGHT NOW .
No solution to frack over the horizon and then pay through the nose to import, whilst adding more emissions through processing and transporting than would be made if produced locally, Jack! Fortunes being made (elsewhere), you stated Jack, but not giving any tax to the UK whilst decreasing the value of UK currency. High energy bills, unaffordable holidays and all other supply chains hiked in price. That is your alternative.
So, where does your nonsense add up to any solution, Jack? You ignore not only physics but arithmetic to make a point, but you don’t even end with a solution as without those two there is none! Free gifts of power stations from the French is your par for the Crazy Golf course, Jack. Typically Jack. Incoherent. It is you Jack who obviously don’t care about UK energy bills. Own it.
Grandchildren decide by the time they are teenagers that they are individuals who don’t mirror their parents. By the time they are adults they will be asking “What happened to our inheritance Grandpa? You spent it on what?! Importing stuff and paying through the nose leaving it to us to pay off the £trillions of debt, including all those £billions for nuclear power stations? ”
No, Jack, I may end up despised but it will not be for attempting to coerce my grandchildren to any Group Think. They are perfectly capable of using their own minds to make their own decisions, and will be helped that most children are pretty experienced, unfortunately, at having to remove fantasy nonsense from the Internet.
Jack, your soapbox is rotten, it keeps collapsing, so maybe something that actually meets the Laws of Physics would be a better platform?
P.S. Jack:
My grandson was delighted to spend this afternoon on a steam train, powered by coal!
GEEE MARTIN , what a load of incoherent Collywaffle.
Didn’t you know , costly, energy intensive Fracking in the UK , won’t bring down energy bills for consumers ??????
So say the people who know.
Didn’t you know Fracking companies are NOT charities ?????? Any Gas produced would be sold on the open market to the highest bidder .
Didn’t you know that the UK already , EASILY imports through underwater pipes 70 + % of GAS from Norway .
Even in your wildest dreams 🤣 don’t tell us you think these ” two bit ” energy companies like Star Energy and Cuadrilla are going to muscle in and save the day for the UK consumers by undercutting the major energy players .
I’m sure the likes of Shell and BP are ” shaking ” in their boots at the thought of such competition 🤣
UK fracked gas , expensive to produce will never undercut the major energy players like Shell an BP.
You’ll have more chance of ” FOLDING STEAM ” old chap/old lady or whatever you wish to be known as .
What we can be certain of , is there is a direct proven link between FRACKING and Cancer, premature death in the elderly , birth defects in new born babies and a proven environmental catastrophe …
In light of this , can you please tell the readers what the EXTRA financial burden will be on the NHS ?????
What will the cost be to the British Taxpayer who will have to shoulder these extra NHS costs ???
If Fracking went ahead in the UK , can you please explain to the readers whose homes will be in close proximity to Fracking sites , why they should accept £10s THOUSANDS being knocked of the value of their homes ????
I’m ” delighted ” your grandson enjoyed his trip on a UK built steam train . It’s important we promote and maintain these wonderful vintage machines from a time when the UK was the engineering hub of the world . With world leading engineers like Joseph Bazalgette , Islambard Brunel and George Stephenson to name but a few at the helm.
Jack, please note:
Closer to 34% piped from Norway, not 70%+ as you stated:
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/the-move-to-net-zero/net-zero-benchmarking-and-analysis/natural-gas-carbon-footprint-analysis/
We don’t have to frack to compete with Norway. As Martin points out, we share the north sea with them. What the fuss seems to be about is allowing companies to explore for conventional gas.
BP & Shell don’t care because they make 95% of their money outside the UK?
TOM ,
I take note of what you say and am happy to be corrected on the matter , if my figures are wrong .
Referring to my source of information .
https://oeuk.org.uk/norway-is-now-uks-primary-gas-supplier-and-declining-north-sea-output-means-uk-faces-importing-80-of-its-gas-and-oil-within-a-decade-warns-oeuk-report/
Imports of gas to UK for 2021 was 67%
Imports of gas to UK is on course to be 80% by the year 2030.
With the trajectory on the up , it’s quite reasonable to assume that 70+ % was a fair and reasonable figure . Although I do accept that the Imports figure may not represent the correct % solely from Norway.
Most readers are aware , that Shell and BP have not interest in UK Fracking . My comments on them ” shaking in their boots ” was more focused on the fact that they are energy suppliers , in the same energy supply business.
Not that they were in anyway intending to be part of UK Fracking , now or in the future .
Hi Jack, that article needs clarification I think. First of all it’s a bit old and the picture has changed hugely since the russian business. The latest figures from 2022 (as quoted in Ruth’s article) are here:
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2023/north-sea-gas-is-almost-four-times-cleaner-than-imports/
Your link points out the need for investment, pointing out very high (and otherwise increasing) levels of imports. But these will not all come from Norway. Indeed in 2022 only 34% of our supply was piped from Norway, though that amounted to just over half of imports. The rest of the imports were LNG, travelling here from all over the world but mainly USA and Qatar. And even some of it from Norway (to supplement the pipelines. )
The emissions intensity of LNG from Norway is the best, though 4 times higher than their piped gas. And in principle any increased local gas supply should be competitive with Norwegian piped gas if we invested appropriately. It could be used to displace the large amounts of LNG we import that have relatively poor emissions intensity.
I have calculated in another reply that the *average* LNG imported gas has about a 20% larger total (ie including end user burning) CO2 footprint than local gas. But that means the worst LNG import is even larger, so there are significant opportunities there to reduce UK total emissions by investing in local gas.
And of course we then reap the tax, currently 75% of profits. So I’m not sure why everyone is so up in arms at the idea of granting licenses in the north sea. It seems like pure dogma to me. I have seen suggestions that we will give massive handouts for the development of new fields, but in my experience this kind of talk is largely based on misunderstanding tax incentives.
“I have calculated in another reply that the *average* LNG imported gas has about a 20% larger total (ie including end user burning) CO2 footprint than local gas. ”
Let me redo those calculations as Paul Seaman suggested a slightly higher number than I was using for downstream emissions ie the emissions from actually burning gas (320 kg vs my 300kg.) I’ll then add the production and transport emissions to this number to get total emissions so that we can compare each gas source. The numbers are all in kg CO2 per boe (“barrel of oil equivalent” in energy terms.)
Norway piped gas, total emissions = 320 + 8 = 328
UK produced gas, total emissions = 320 + 22 = 342
Avg LNG, total emissions = 320 + 79 = 399
Worst LNG emissions (Peru) = 320 + 97 = 417
So, avg LNG import is worse than local gas by (79-22)/342 = 16.7%
Worst (Peruvian) LNG is worse than local gas by (97-22)/342 = 21.9%
If we aspire to Norwegian emissions standards (8 kgCO2/boe) then::
Avg LNG would be worse by (79-8)/328 = 21.6%
Worst LNG would be worse by (97-8)/328 = 27.1%
Numbers obtained from this factsheet:
Click to access nsta-gas-footprint-factsheet_2023.pdf
Well, the first bit of your post was just a display of ignorance, Jack. What is the definition of a UK Windfall Tax on UK energy, or even UK taxation upon UK energy without the Windfall???
UK can easily import just about everything, Jack-until it has a currency so weak it can not afford to import anything! It has to import stuff if it doesn’t invest in that stuff and other countries do, no matter what those other countries charge. I did get a greater semblance of understanding such basics from my grandson, Jack. He already knows if he visits his Granny in Spain he can buy a lot more with his pocket money if his currency is not weak before he has it converted to Euros.
I do quite like a bit of fiction, but the constant interruption of a non fiction discussion with such fiction is just propaganda based upon nothing. Nice of you to make an effort, but it really requires little more effort to stick with the reality-unless the reality doesn’t add up. You constantly show that is a problem for you Jack. It is the same problem with the other “opponents”.
The last bit was interesting. You mean the time when UK had energy costs that allowed industry to prosper???? At the moment Jack, you may need to look across the Atlantic to catch up. Their gas peak was $7, Europe’s $47. The reality Jack, recorded for posterity (see July 15th 2022).
Hmm, the UK tax payer paying for the NHS? Less tax from industry more from the private tax payer, Jack. Meanwhile, in USA their health system with all it’s flaws has much better outcomes for patients suffering from cancer.
House prices? In UK dropping like a stone, as prospective purchasers find high energy costs reduce their ability to fund mortgages.
Never mind Jack, you chose the Green wicket to bat on, using a flawed technique. The result was inevitable.
Must try getting your facts right MARTIN ,
Less of the Collywaffle please.
Whilst I have your attention , for the 100th plus time I ask….. Can we please discuss Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN ?????
Let’s start at number ONE , it’s proven direct link to Cancer
Try getting your own facts correct, Jack. Tom has offered you assistance to help extract yourself.
Can I ask for you to address the wildfires from electricity distribution in the USA and their direct link to cancer, Jack? Apparently, our green and pleasant land needs three times the current amount. Surely, Jack, this can only increase the risk of cancer by at least three times in the UK?! There can be no doubt based upon the thousands of recorded incidents in USA. Then, there are the extra nuclear power stations, Jack. What is the multiplication from that? Then the nuclear waste disposal, which is another risk factor.
Then, where will the tax come from for the NHS to deal with it all? Norway? Nope. USA? Nope. What about house prices around the nuclear power stations and along the electricity distribution corridors? How many more swans will be seen hanging dead from the wires, Jack? Will you supply a swan version of air traffic control?
Come on Jack, let us have the data!
As Tom correctly stated the data points towards benefits of UK investment in the N.Sea, not only in terms of emissions but also in terms of economics. Incentives are there to be used for all industries to be based in UK and return tax to UK rather than go elsewhere and not do so. Maybe have a look at the incentives to get a battery factory to Bridgewater?
Mind you, there is always the possibility that few of the licences will deliver. Then, Jack UK will just have to increase their contracts with USA and others and the emissions will be higher, the NHS poorer and all that stuff you want imported will be dearer due to a weaker currency. Good combo, Jack? Maybe for you, certainly for Chesapeake Energy but not for the UK.
Just finished making my jam today, Jack. Raspberries/loganberries from my garden (very local), sugar from UK sugar beet (localish), lemons from the Med. (oops) and energy from ???? who knows where. I just prefer 3:1 rather than 2:2. Many exporters would like to get it to 3 :1 or 4:0 but I have yet to see any benefit to that, when I can do it myself. Shock/horror, I will even export some that I am told is an issue, but can’t see why that should be so, as I will get some foreign currency-probably Port. If I upped the quantities and charged a price, I would pay some tax here in UK. Nothing too exciting there, but I expect there will be some who have some issue.
Only trouble is Jack, there are some twerps who decided wheat should go into E10 petrol so my scones will need a mortgage to acquire!
Ahh, at last Jack. You have done some research! Sorry to notice though your research was pretty flawed. It was Isambard Brunel who was the one here, in other areas they may well have had their own Islambard, as they certainly produced some feats of impressive engineering.
So Jack, “we” should produce the coal for these wonderful vintage machines????? Welcome from the dark side, Jack.
GEEE there’s some quality Collywaffle in that rant . Dead Swans hanging from electricity cables , UK sugar beat and Lemons , you making Raspberry Jam , even Granny in Spain was brought in to the equation … What a great dollop of Collywaffle 🤣
FIRSTLY , my information is not flawed
( 2 ) Who’s talked about windfall taxes on energy companies, I haven’t… BUT for the record,, my views have always been made clear….. Instead of heavy windfall taxes , force the energy giants to use that money ( windfall tax money ) to fund green projects of their own ….. Its a WIN, WIN for both sides as each get something out of it … The public are happy as ultimately, they get cleaner air, and cheaper bills … The energy companies are happy because they still see a good profit return on their investments ( as green energy is cheaper than most fossil fuels ) It will keep shareholders happy . It also will be fantastic publicity for an industry that could do with some good PR .
( 3 ,) , The white elephant company otherwise known as Chesapeake Energy in 2020 was 9 BILLION in debt and filing for Bankruptcy protection….. Fast forward to the Russia- Ukraine War and the Oil and Gas sanctions on Russia , all of a sudden Chesapeake Energy can hold its head above the waterline …. What a difference a WAR makes , but the war will end and then its back to Bankruptcy.
( 4 ) I think you’ll find here on planet earth , people would choose GOOD HEALTH over Fracking , CANCER and early death.
( 5 ) Let JACK put this in extremely SIMPLE TERMS for you to understand MARTIN ….. Anyone with more than one brain cell in their head would choose not to live in close proximity to a proven highly toxic industry like Fracking …..
Let’s face it old chap , it’s hardly like living next to the hanging gardens of Babylon 🤣
Facts are facts , house prices plumet when even the word Fracking is mentioned
( 6 )
OK MARTIN ( ex street GAS lamp lighter )
Were all aware of your bitterness towards the electricity distribution network and that a return to the good old days of gas street lamps is your ultimate goal .
So as electricity distribution is of great concern to you is it ????? Your old buddy JACK will be hapoy to discuss the USA and its old , tired , 19th century distribution network with you.
A place where old power cables are still suspended on top of wooden poles …… Whilst we’re at it , can we also discuss what part the rise in global temperatures due to climate change
and the tinder dry woodlands are playing on these heated old power lines ???????
Totally flawed, Jack.
There was no electricity network in USA in the 19th century, Jack.
So, let me put it in simple terms-just more fiction and bluster from Jack.
You also stated that the supply of UK gas would not bring the price to the UK consumer down Jack. That is also fiction-it just has. My energy company has given me the full details. Yours has not? Hmm, I wonder why? LOL. Will it happen again in UK this winter? Not so sure. If it happens, then sorry NHS, you may have less. Very good health service in Norway, Jack. That is what investment in tax paying industry does.
Force the energy giants? Absolute twaddle. They are International, they can go elsewhere. Many have done so, hence LESS taxation revenue for the UK. Ermm, that is what the issue of new licences is aimed to reverse, Jack! They are already investing in Green energy, although some have said they will invest LESS if their income is reduced. Ineos are not fracking in the UK as they were “forced” not to, so have taken their investment to USA! They will pay US tax on that, Jack. It will not feature as a windfall, or any sort of tax to benefit the UK. Maybe, Sir Jim will spend some of his personal income in UK and some VAT may accrue, but not quite the same.
My goodness, if that is your solution, right now, then the world really is facing a bleak future. If that is an example of the “opponents” ideas then no wonder there is no coherence. However, Jack, at least you offered something even if it failed to add up, and was just more of the someone else will cough up. More than many of the opponents attempt but still nonsense. The UK tax payer will pay. Ask them in Uxbridge, Jack.
The rest is equally incorrect and incoherent, but hey ho, that is the way you post Jack. It is fiction, and you make every effort to display that it is. The war will end? Hopefully yes, they always do, although they can escalate before they do so. Then your other fiction is that Europe will then have gas piped from Russia. Well, Jack, you make no secret of your aspiration, but that is fiction also-unless Europe has been invaded by Russia! Watching the performance of their armed forces, no chance.
What will happen when the war ends is that the world economy will pick up, demand for oil and gas will increase world wide, and perhaps OPEC and others will kindly increase their restricted output-including Chesapeake Energy and maybe the N.Sea. Alternatively, Jack, they won’t and just state “you have deliberately ignored your own resource whilst rushing towards Net Zero in an uncoordinated way. You got into it, you get out of it. Why should we bail you out AGAIN? Good luck though whilst you wait for your free nuclear power stations from the French, and don’t invest in a house near one of the GDFs. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣”
MARTIN ,
Let JACK help you understand
Here’s a little info on 19th Century electricity distribution…. Your apologies are warmly accepted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electric_power_transmission
This will help ” YOU ” brush up on your history
MARTIN ,
If you’ve got some special one off deal with your energy supplier , where they have specifically put in writing that your UK gas supplied energy is coming down in price on the back of it being sourced from the UK .
Then we all want to see the evidence ???????
Failure to show evidence , will render your comment as pure Collywaffle.
MARTIN
Your WRONG again.
Russian gas is still making its way in to Europe and as soon as the war is over, it’ll be back to business as usual…
That’s one thing HISTORY has shown us .
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/03/28/russian-gas-flowing-through-ukraine-can-only-stop-when-eu-countries-stop-imports-naftogaz-
MARTIN ,
What TOM has supplied is clear an concise in the points he raised ..
Unlike yourself MARTIN , who only supplies sparce, Wild-Off-The-Cuff ” OPINIONS ” backed up with zero evidence . TOM puts a lot more meat on the bones.
I think I need to clarify things here , probably only ONCE for TOM and maybe a 100+ times for you MARTIN..
My gripe is with the , scrape the bottom of the fossil fuel barrel , onshore , highly toxic Fracking industry in built up residential areas and the catastrophe for climate change and the environment it will cause.
I never ONCE voiced my opposition to the North Sea licenses ….. Although I must clearly stress that the ” business as usual ” style approach to the wasteful way we consume energy must rapidly change .
Why should the rich and famous be allowed to charter a jumbo jet to move half a dozen people around , or be allowed to burn £ 50 000 + worth of GAS PER YEAR in one home , just because they can afford to ??????? This has to change .
I accept that we will continue to burn gas for the next number of years . it’s not feasible to just completely switch off gas in the UK right now ,, mainly because successive governments have done almost SWEET FA to prepare the UK for its move away from gas and oil .
It’s clear to see that the Carbon Footprint from the North Sea will be less than that of Fracked gas shipped from the USA and with British industry at the heart of this project , UK offshore sourced gas is the best choice at this time …… BUT come on ladies and gentlemen , you must agree , the transition to cleaner and greener energy must pick up a rapid , enthusiastic pace .
What a load of nonsense, Jack-but that is what you do, so nothing new.
I should expect that everyone will now be aware of your constant fictional diversions, so no need to correct all the errors of fact.
Your final bit just clarified how you know absolutely nothing about the UK whilst masquerading as a concerned UK citizen.
Why will British industry be at the heart of this project?? Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Your clarification clarifies how little you know about the reality in UK.
Then the bit about picking up pace! Well, really depends on having distribution network capable, and that will find it very difficult to pick up pace as local objection will continue to delay it. I have noted local support is constantly referenced by yourself Jack. Well, sorry but there is little local support for multiplication of the network. Then, it takes 30 years to get a nuclear power station built and working, so the horse will take a while to arrive so that the cart can move enthusiastically.
The pace in the UK has not been the problem, to date. The problem has been building the hot tubs before the foundations are built for the dwelling.
Ahh, people not being allowed to do what they can afford to do. An interesting concept but really not worth any effort as the fiction around that one would be never ending. Not to worry though Jack. Here in the UK buildings using a lot of expensive energy are closing weekly-such as public swimming pools.
Jack, thanks for clarifying your position. I take your point re fracking. I think there are some genuine issues there, but one always has to consider how much they may be exaggerated.
Anywhere I find an outright demon (or angel!), these days, I feel I’m probably being “fed a line”. Self-serving interest and propaganda is everywhere that money, power and influence are at play. And there’s an awful lot of money to be made from the green/energy revolution, perhaps more than from fossil fuels. The think tanks that come up with the reports likely have their own interests, either through industry funding or grant money. They need to produce the kind of results that their sponsors want to hear.
What concerns me most is that much of the green narrative seems not to have been properly analyzed. There are an increasing number of voices starting to call BS in some areas. On the suspiciously low costs and longevity of wind and solar, for example, or on the lack of attention to backup storage and grid upgrades, or simply on the vast implied demand on raw materials. The last in particular will require huge increases in energy expenditure, and one may ask if it’s possible while we simultaneously go on a fossil fuel diet.
It takes a lot of energy to make the materials for the energy transition. If you want to increase the pace you need a surplus of energy. The larger the surplus the quicker we get there. And remember, the longer it takes to get there, the longer we spend pumping CO2 into the atmosphere just to keep the lights on! I sometimes wonder why noone mentions this. It seems so obvious to me – if the ‘end of world’ narrative is real then surely we should be using our remaining ‘allowable budget’ of carbon emissions as quickly as possible? That’s how we would maximise the amount we use up for the transition, and minimize what we use in overhead. But that seems to have been lost in the knee-jerk general panic and political mud slinging.
Hyperbole, and rancorous division, is a staple of public discussion these days. Selective reporting, misleading by omission, arguments from authority, all sorts of fallacies are everywhere and one has to work very hard to find a way through. That’s an effort few seem willing to make. Many succumb to the fever and seek an obvious target to vent their frustrations.
I’ve come to the conclusion that’s just how the game of power and influence works. It embroils everyone, politicians, media and general public, and most of us are lost in it. So I think if we really want to get anywhere, that’s the game that we have to see through and patiently dismantle. Patience and good humour are the way to deal with it, because it feeds on impatience and bad temper. And there is little real joy among the impatient and bad tempered. Be the change you want to see in the world!
Some of the Green stuff is pretty easy to analyse Tom. The problem is that when it is, then there are serious issues but no serious response to those issues.
Obviously, it has been finally accepted that much more nuclear is required in UK to allow for when gas/oil is less. Should have been accepted many years ago, but it is what it is. The sudden conversion to the obvious is fine. The delusion trying to be peddled that the high cost will not fall upon the UK tax payer is delusion, as the reason for the delay has been the high cost. PFIs, especially from foreign governments, still require the UK tax payer to pay, but MORE. They have delivered the same problems so many times one has to wonder why they are being promoted as some sort of miracle cure.
The E10 petrol farce has been a long time in the making, but it was clearly going to be a problem. I was an animal nutritionist 40 years ago and remember vividly sitting with clients watching the screens whilst US crop planting data was being announced. Even back then, growing of maize for use as a fuel was being promoted, and incentivized. So, there were years when the data showed more maize being planted, less soya. Every animal nutritionist knew the result would be higher prices for imported soya from USA and therefore higher feed prices and thus higher meat prices. Yet, the same was rolled out in Europe with wheat. When that started, I recall data for the proposed factory output in UK for that purpose. It happened to be larger than the surplus grain production for the UK from a bumper harvest-which are fairly infrequent. All of this against an escalating world population, who do expect to eat.
The first lot of scientists behind such referenced a reduced carbon footprint. Then, another lot redid the analysis and stated it was not so! I expect there were scientists behind the encouragement for UK motorists to convert to diesel a few years ago. Now, the same bunch of politicians who supported are penalizing those who did so.
There is no end to it. The Germans seem to have made an art form out of swinging from one energy source to another and then back again. The same experts in UK who were glibly talking about UK having energy security are now having to admit it was not so, and it needs to be rectified. Maybe the real answer is they were just not as expert as they made out.
Having been in agriculture all my life, Tom, I am used to the BS. I still remember though, when dealing with it a lot more artificial fertilizer will be required to grow the crops required. If not available, and/or too expensive, then the volume of food produced will drop and the price go through the roof.
MARTIN ,
I live in the real world , not like some I could name who live in some fantasy land like ” Fraggle Rock ”
All of the engineers named above , were geniuses in their own field , who made great contributions to the UK during their lives …. This is why we still remember their names to this day . Nothing flawed here MARTIN
YOU raise the question , ” So Jack, “we” should produce the coal for these wonderful vintage machines????? Welcome from the dark side, Jack.”
I accept that fossil fuels will remain part of the equation for some time to come , mainly because of the inadequacies of successive governments preparing the UK for something they have known about for decades , CLIMATE CHANGE.
We have to make adjustments to what we consume regarding fossil fuels , BUT on the other hand , the pleasure so many people get traveling on these marvelous vintage steam engines and when you consider that only a handful of them run , only on special occasions . The impact they make is very minimal on the overall environment.
No doubt in the near future , these great machines will probably be converted to having their water heated by small nuclear reactors.
It’s important we keep our proud British heritage alive for future generations .
Well, Jack, not so sure about Islambard, but nice to see you are now okay with coal and other fossil fuels.
Strange though that has not been the thrust of your previous postings, so I will gladly accept that some conversion appears to have taken place.
Governments can prepare populations for many things, Jack, if they have the money required. Pandemics? Solar activity that will make the world uninhabitable? Nuclear war? And on and on.
I have no issue with governments preparing UK for things but recognize they are not ever going to do it very well, so I would like a little more care and less speed to do it a bit better. Governments come and go every few years, the rest of us have a lifetime to “enjoy” their efforts.
“The pleasure that so many get traveling”? Now that is another interesting comment from you Jack, but I suspect your previous conversion already has you excluded from the ranks, so this one should be a free ride!
Rain coming Jack, must get my lawn mower out before it arrives.
“(To USA not Europe!)”
To both, Martin. Europe would have paid even more without imports from USA.
But you’re right about the nonsense. All we seem to want is a soapbox from which to blame others, whilst vigorously demonstrating our own ignorance. Almost as if politics was designed that way.
The problem is Tom, people playing politics with energy provision. They play to their perceived gallery, are usually in politics because they have no hope of making it in the real world, and then after a few years disappear-or get some nice little income stream from revisiting their few previous successes, without any responsibility for their many disasters.
It is quite apparent, and many posts on DoD seem to be from political activists who see the subject as fertile ground, but post nonsense about the reality of energy supply.
I await the cries of outrage and sympathy now BP have just declared a large drop in profits!
P.S. Jack:
My grandson was delighted to spend this afternoon on a steam train, powered by coal!
Rishi has found his back bone! 👏👏👏
It’s probably time to frack too!!
Oops, apologies for the repeat! That’s what happens when the temperature drops and the arthritis is present. (He did want a second trip but with the cost of energy in UK Grandpa had to say no. Will get him used to having to economize when all the £trillions have to be paid back!)
It is hard to come to terms with this abdication of moral responsibility. It is tempting to invoke this quandary in the terms suggested by Fintan O’Toole with reference to Brexit in his excellent ‘Three Years in Hell: The Brexit Chronicles’ – Is the explanation for this ignorance deliberate unknowing, crass self-delusion or merely pig ignorance? The latter seems unlikely in the case of Sunak if not with reference to others of his colleagues over the last five or six years. Perhaps there is some mileage in the second explanation which, to quote O’Toole, comprises those who “start with an ideological premise which [they] believe to be true even though it isn’t and then draw apparently reasonable conclusions from it”. The belief, for example, that the resultant policy will contribute to net zero and is in conformance with U.K. commitments thereto. Or the belief that the fossil fuels acquired will in some way contribute to British energy security and independence, perhaps even a manifestation of re-acquired sovereignty. Or the conviction that the rest of the world will allow this bit of British, perhaps I should say English exceptionalism, and turn a tolerant blind eye to it, refusing to follow suit.
Of the three explanations , my own preference is the first, the least morally acceptable, deliberate unknowing – unknowing what you know, in this case to appease the right, a Trumpian popularist move, here intended to reduce the landslide defeat predicted in the next general election. This deliberate unknowing might conceivably and conveniently have pecuniary benefits for those who have chosen their ignorance. The electoral benefits are hard to see with an increasingly informed public.
As Pascal averred – the heart has its reasons, reasons unknown to reason.
Let us hope that the reason of those not prepared to unknow what they know will here prevail.
The time has passed for brandishing irrelevant figures and insisting that one is supported by the maths and the physics when the mathematicians and the physicists assert the contrary. The cost of everything and the value of nothing, all to be passed on to the next generations. How sad!
Well, 1720, an interesting attempt to elevate yourself to some sort of moral high ground, but hardly anything to do with the subject.
You put forward three explanations, contrived by yourself, and then argued around them. What an activist does, but of little interest and value to others.
For electoral benefits-maybe you were asleep when the Uxbridge result was announced?
Costs being passed on to the next generation? Like £200B for new nuclear power stations, 1720-for starters? Costs are always passed to the next generation. (Unless “we” are like Norway and have created a whacking great Sovereign Wealth Fund!) Mine had the cost of WW2, my sons have Covid and my grandsons will have Net Zero. Sad, but such is life and those taking the decisions to generate the costs should accept that is the case. They don’t because they know they will be gone when the new voters can respond.
Somehow the future adult generations are being told the costs will benefit them, yet those doing so are unable to detail what those costs will be! As a recent survey has shown, the increasingly informed public support measures but NOT when they are expected to pay through the nose for them-hence Uxbridge. Most in the UK can do simple arithmetic when the bills come through the letter box, 1720.
The rest of the world will do what the rest of the world wish to do, 1720. You seem to be trying to be some sort of reborn Victorian, where UK determines what the rest of the world does. The rest of the world could switch off the lights in UK right now, 1720, if it so desired. One part has already been trying that over the last twelve months. To keep them on has cost the UK public dearly. There should be a lesson there, but one that seems to have passed you by.
Maybe a little less contriving, a little less fantasy and some more focus upon the facts?
[Edited by moderator]