From the “ecos will experience wailing and gnashing of teeth” department comes this revelation from the Political Editor of the Daily Telegraph.
If true, this represents a major about face in “climate policy”. The pols must be more scared of the impending winter energy backlash than they are of climate change.
CONFIRMED:
Meaningless playing to the gallery.
There are two problems with this policy.
1) It is still subject to local planning objections – which will drag on years.
2) The ban will probably be re-introduced if a coalition forms in two years time including the Greens.
So, put your business hat on and consider this: Will you invest in UK fracking?
It’s spin. not policy. To make it happen would require Government investment, not relying on the private sector.
I would call the imminent ‘granny freezing to death in the dark’ an emergency, so they could treat it that way and over-ride the NIMBYs.
Interesting thing. In Canada it was (and maybe still is) the case that a lower level of government couldn’t restrict a higher level. An example: Because of aircraft flight paths the law was that any radio tower higher than 50 feet had to be licensed by the federal government. That meant that if a tower was licensed by the feds, the local municipality couldn’t forbid it because of height restrictions. If my memory serves me correctly, that happened in Grimsby, Ontario. I wonder if such a legal principle applies in the UK.
The covid masking “Granny killer” refrain was pretty effective.
There’s now a third problem exacerbating the exploration of new gas by any means (let alone fracking) Now that Charles is in charge, it might not happen. He is a BIG GREEN PROPONENT and heavily against FF exploration.
Charles will now have to become more ‘neutral’ as he is the head of state. However, he has no authority – that resides with parliament.
None of his business. He may be Head of State but he is not “in charge” in any political sense.
If he wants to precipitate a constitutional crisis before his mother is even cold this could be the ideal way to do it!
I wouldn’t put it beyond him to try
By merely requesting “more information”, he can delay fracking. The same approach black balls appointments to the Church of England.
Fortunately Charles will not be charge of anything. UK Royal Family has no ability to set or change UK Government policies and legislation.
Acts of Parliament require Royal Assent before they may come into effect. I know of no instance of this being refused. The monarch is not permitted to enter the House of Commons which why the MPs are required to go to the House of Lords to hear the monarch’s speech.
the major point of the system is that the Monarch has all of the power and yet none of the power. The Government is allowed to be formed by the Monarch, but the Monarch otherwise does not interfere with the running of the country. The Monarch can – I believe – reject a Government, but only as so far as to put the question back to the voting process.
The King can’t just say “Hey, I have the crown and I want all roads to become one way only” cause that is not the authority.
BUT… yeah, The King is a tree hugger.
I know nothing about British law but maybe Truss can pass a decree declaring Charles a turnip, not an exaggeration, then decree the crown passes to Anne, a far better choice in every way.
They did it to his great uncle, precedent is a bitch.
Then chuck can focus on his turnips, and Camilla
No. It doesn’t work that way. There is a strict line of succession and Anne is 15th. It isn’t X Factor or Strictly, you don’t get to vote off the least favourite in some popularity contest until you are left with the winner.
Turnip? I thought that he wanted to be a tampon!
Personally, I think King Charles’s reign may well lead to the death of the monarchy in Great Britain. He appears to me to be extremely stupid and completely tone-deaf when it comes to many issue
Time will tell.
“Will you invest in UK fracking”?
In the absence of a windfall tax, yes.
Really? That assumes that Truss won’t make a U-Turn in the next week as she usually does.
It assumes that the next Government will also choose borrowing over taxation to fund their policies.
It assumes that the local objections are resolved before the invention of fusion reactors or the end of the world. Which is dependent on lawyers being bored of getting money…
I wouldn’t.
Imagine all this in a 1940 scenario, sabateurs would be shot and protesters beaten. No local objections would be allowed. The process would go ahead unhindered.
Give the people a significant break on power costs after the left has destroyed the wellbeing of ~ 75% of the people for no good reason, and they will fall instantly in love with fracking and fossil fuels more broadly (by the ‘left’ I mean all the homogenized parties to what may be the Greatest Crimes Against Humanity hitherto. Wearing a silly Vlad Lenin cap isn’t a distinction).
Protesters blocking progress toward this development will have reason to keep their heads down and mouths shut. People will also see that the world isn’t warming in any significant way, especially, after another La Niña winter and colder waters in the Atlantic that have changed a ‘forecast of a busier Atlantic Hurricane season into an ominous calm.
I hope you are correct but I fear you are giving people more intelligence that what has been demonstrated thus far when it comes to CAGW and, also, energy.
A waste of a comment really…….
I hardly think accepting Brexit was a U turn, nor do I think switching from Lib Dems as a youth to the Conservative party is a U turn either.
It seems to be accepted she did a good job on trade deals which is more than any other former remainer I can think of would have done.
Why on earth would you tax the public to compound the misery of escalating energy cost’s?
Truss want’s to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes and encouraging business. And to the Conservatives considerable credit, they are doing a damn good job of helping SME’s with good idea’s to flourish. Look up ‘Innovate UK’ for more information.
Truss’s announcement assumes nothing of the next government. Where did she express an expectation?
Local objections are few and far between and what there are will likely be changing their minds PDQ when their next energy bill comes through the post. Fracking was stopped by some outrageous restrictions, as noted by fretslider:
Nothing to do with lawyers.
I think the government are going to approach Fracking licence’s from a different angle. I think they are going to get communities most affected by the drilling on side by providing incentives that benefit those communities directly. Lower community charges etc. and of course low energy bills would be a great advantage.
Galileo,
The immediate, direct, and – frequently – large financial rewards given to American landowners sitting atop hydrocarbons play a huge role in the development of the American oil and gas industry
Why should local “communities” (aka local Councils) get gcash because a business has taken the risk, raised the capital and recruited the skills to do the fracking. HMY get the Corporation Tax and other taxes for us all.
In most of the US, land owners also own the mineral rights for whatever lies beneath their property. Oil/gas developers have to compensate the land owners for what is extracted.
Because if locals object to planning applications then Fracking licences grind to a halt and then you get XR activists climbing on the band wagon glueing themselves to what ever will get them noticed inviting the media circus to come to town for a great big jamboree. Mean while in the real world the threat of energy rationing through the winter gets more real by the day. That’s why I think local people should get some of the reward for the disruption and benefit that Fracking might bring.
There’s very few of you that seem to know what “Fracking” actually is or where it works. Here’s a decent primer. API | Introduction – What is hydraulic fracturing?
I know what Fracking entails, the reply to M Courtney from HotScot above regarding “earth quakes” was the log jam to on shore gas exploration. Ed Davy is not a fan of Fracking or Nuclear.
That’s easy.
Though , fracking choices Liz has suggested are the much harder to frack North Sea locations.
She basically got the same deals as we had in the EU, only slightly worse… except for the Australian one, which hangs UK farmers out to dry
That is largely true but you neglect to mention that the NZ deal was even worse than the Australian one. Well, unless you’re a Kiwi that is.
You misunderstand the Government policy. They are taxing the public to pay for smoothing the costs of energy bills. Borrowing has to be paid off eventually.
The taxes they are refusing to take are on the excess profits of the energy companies. Profits that exist solely because of the high price of gas at the moment.
NOTE: If those profits were ploughed into investments in developing energy sources, then they would not be taxed.
Windfall profits are a market signal that investment in new supply will be rewarded. Plus, the profits provide the fodder for new capital investment.
Windfall profits taxes destroy this process and prolong shortages.
Since there were no tax CREDITS to help offset windfall LOSSES a couple of years ago when the cost of a barrel of oil actually went below zero, then it is obscene to expect additional taxes on windfall profits. A great many companies see their bottom line swing from a multibillion dollar loss one year to a multibillion dollar profit the next. It is the nature of their business.
A windfall will only exist as long as gas supply is insufficient to meet demand, and such is already the case now and will grow far more out of balance as the winter begins months from now. As soon as production begins to climb towards demand, the prices will fall.
It’s already happened with oil, with per barrel prices for crude already down to the low $80 range from a peak of $130 earlier this year … due to a combination of gradually increasing supply, from its nadir during the shutdowns of COVID in 2020, and due to “demand destruction” due to high prices earlier this year
The markets always rule, as long as the governments get the hell out of the way. Politicians and way too many dumb voters think that governments control markets … instead it is markets that effectively control politicians.
As you have repeatedly stated, ‘there is nothing a president (or a prime minister) can do to impact oil or gas prices’.
As such, there will be no increase in supply as a result of the Truss end to a fracking ban.
Right?
Ending a fracking ban won’t produce any gas or make the prices do anything .. the gas will be produced somewhere, whether it is within the bounds of the UK is immaterial as the gas market is always a world market, not a national market. The prices are high, and producers are going to invest wherever they can generate a return. Banning fracking by governments is pointless as is unbanning fracking. The markets are going to do whatever the hell they intend to do.
The only thing governments can do is get out of the way and stop foolishly trying to control the markets.
By the way, to further prove my point that the gas market is a world market, gas prices are extremely high here in the United States too, just as they are everywhere else in the world. In case you hadn’t noticed. We frack the hell out of our gas fields here in the US except where an individual state has banned it. Utility electric bills have skyrocketed here in the US this year, again, just like everywhere else – my power bills this summer are nearly double what they were a year ago, and my local utility uses mostly gas fired power plants
In places like central and eastern Europe where gas prices are higher than in the US it is only because they were caught flat footed by the Russian war on Ukraine, and failing to recognize that Putin’s Russia is an extremely unreliable and indeed belligerent gas supplier. They knew that years ago and could have been better prepared, but complacency ruled the day in the EU.
Is this some kind of international law, or would it be possible for the UK government to do a deal with a business drilling in the UK to supply gas at a profitable rate agreed between them both?
The gas market has elements of a world market but it is a market that is obviously volume constrained (as is clearly evidenced by the yawning price disparity between Henry Hub, NBP, TTF and JKM prices as well as the rush to build U.S.LNG export facilities).
“The only thing governments can do is get out of the way …”
What am I missing?
You repeatedly say the governments (Biden in particular) can’t get in the way, then you say the only thing they can do is get out of the way ….
The gas market is primarily a regional international market connected by pipelines. The world component of the market requires LNG carriers and the associated cost and inefficiency of compressing the gas, then re-gassification at its destination. While LNG carriers will tend to stabilize the peak gas price when it has reached a sustained excessive level, the associated costs and limited transport availability will not restore “normal” prices. The gas production and supply is in no way a FREE market in the UK, or EU. I’m glad you agree that governments should get away from the market, and permanently eliminate their ridiculous fracking ban.
“whether it is within the bounds of the UK is immaterial”
Unless the revenues are taxable in the UK, this also reduces transport costs and improves our security of supply.
Obvious points I’d have thought.
Banning fracking is not governments get[ting] the hell out of the way.
Is a Windfall Tax what you’re charged if your turbine mast breaks?
When I saw the headline on my email, I thought: “Ye gods, they’re gonna goad me!”.But you asking if it would be wise to invest in UK fracking allows me to let off steam gently…
My information is rather old, and I saved no references on a matter I laughed off as a fad at first. Also, I think it is mostly American figures, which show that fracking, as a whole, has still not shown any real, over-the-counter, supply-demand economy profit. Then it hit me:
The “Fracking Revolution” is the new laws made to legitimise the scam that is fracking. For the first time, it was legal, no, encouraged, to leverage loans on forecast profits on future earnings estimated by …what I shall kindly call ‘econostrology’.
And, you must admit, by now there are literally trillions riding on leveraged loans and circular guarantees, and actually stopping this useless, polluting and criminal scam (as I understand it in my dotage) would bankrupt a lot of physically unemployed people, who loan and lie for a living.
Unfortunately, they are the same ones making the rules, soooo…..
I shall not pollute this forum with my theory that fracking is actually part of the geo-re-engineering taking place, as openly promoted by Baal Gates and friends.
(it’s what happens when you outsource defense technology to private companies)
Have you any evidence for this statement?
HS,
In 2015, the Obama EPA produced a ~1,000 page report/analysis on the entire 70 plus years of frac’ing in the USA.
It was actually a meta study in that it reviewed over one thousand other reports/studies covering over 1 million frac’d wells.
Results?
The Dimmock, Pavillion, and Parker county ‘incidents’ were found to be ‘questionable’. Shortly after the report’s release, both Pavillion and Dimmock were irrefutably proven to be bogus damage claims.
I will answer for him.
HE HAS NONE.
If everybody knows that fracking is a money looser, why are so many people getting rich using it?
Thank you for not polluting this forum with yet another nut case conspiracy theory.
Your spin is unlikely The pain of this coming winter’s energy shortfall has not even arrived yet … let tens of millions of people shiver in the cold for an entire winter and attitudes that have already been adjusted are going to get adjusted a whole lot more.
The government has no need to invest in energy production – it only needs to remove governmental obstacles. The markets will always respond. Record high gas prices now is certainly going to spur massive investment in new gas fields, infrastructure, and techniques including fracking. That’s how the oil and gas business has always acted, and reacted, as long as governments get the hell out of the way.
You’re not wrong M Courtney
Fracking will not happen in the UK unless it goes on a wartime footing. The system will have to break completely like when Greenpeace is finally erased and the West returns to survival mode.
The solution to a problem caused by government, is more government.
Fair comment, but early days with Truss as PM.
To be fair to Boris, one of his achievements was to begin the process of cutting out the deadwood from the Civil Service.
Truss is pledging to reduce taxes to stimulate business, unusual for governments these days. lets hope that attitude continues.
However, as I have said elsewhere, the Conservatives have been working behind the scenes for years now encouraging innovation by funding early stage research into concepts banks and investors won’t touch because they are too early stage.
I have a grant application running for a concept, working with a prominent University on its early design.
For a very modest sum we could get a global patent which will be worth millions in revenue, employment and taxable income for the country.
Some might brand that socialism, but I consider it responsibly stimulating the economy and exploiting the deserved perception of we Brit’s coming up with barmy but successful inventions.
I think the expression many years ago was; Britain invents it, Japan makes it, and America sells it.
Have you looked at the extra civil servants recruited to deal with post Brexit changes?
The first thing she’ll have to deal with, another thing in her first week, is the death of the reigning monarch – Queen Elizabeth II has just died and King Charles is now the reigning monarch.
You have my condolences. Both for the death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension of Charles.
As King, Charles may find far more restrictions on what he is able to say or do. There are constitutional precedents that keep the head of state as politically neutral as possible which may serve to reduce the rhetoric. Any direct action by the head of state into the actions of the government would trigger a huge constitutional crisis that could end the monarchy so even Charles will want to avoid that.
Three cheers for Oliver Cromwell!
How fitting that it was King Charles against whom Cromwell fought for liberty.
*****
Please accept my heartfelt condolences on the passing of your queen. As was said above, both for the end of a wise, competent, and gracious, reign AND for the foolish, unfit, embarrassing, current one.
“I think the expression many years ago was; Britain invents it, Japan makes it, and America sells it.”
And now, China steals it and copies it, with a Benediction from the UN.
Auto
/sarc. 😏
Ya think? ;*)
“To make it happen would require Government investment,” or loan guarantees.
OK. But that’s still the Government taking the risk.
Big difference, in one the government is the owner and the other it’s just a debt holder. The worst thing that could happen to the energy sector would be for it to be owned by the government.
Correct, M Courtney. In less than a year they can easily destroy industry investment for a decade.
Many years ago now, government started half-heartedly supporting nuclear power again. But not so much that anything has actually been built.
Nuclear lost impetus because of the greens and their insistence that renewables were the ecological answer, and everyone fell for it.
The fact’s are now coming home to roost.
Over the coming years the UK government (of all stripes) will begin promoting nuclear. It’ll be subtly introduced across the media just as renewables were. Renewables ‘nudging’ will decline in order to whip up enthusiasm for nuclear and every time the subject is raised in Parliament Conservatives will ask if the ‘honourable member supporting renewables’ is willing to return to the early 2020’s when the lights went out.
We’re not alone here. Despite Fukushima the Japanese are proposing to build three new nuclear power stations – from memory.
A Californian nuclear power station has been rescued from being shut down despite Gavin Newsom’s utterly insane green policies.
Gas will now be sold as a transition fuel, which it was and should have remained. The fact is, even with nuclear we can’t do without gas as. Nuclear is baseload, it can’t respond to peaks and troughs in demand. Neither can wind or solar.
Utter tosh. Local objections weren’t the problem. Government policy was the problem, now swept aside.
There will be a licence granted by HM government to Cuadrilla for probably a minimum of 20 years. Why would they bother even beginning to drill otherwise?
That’s my point. No Government can bind its successor. They won’t bother to begin to drill.
Governments bind future governments all the time. It’s called a contract.
Can’t be broken without compensation. That way even if a future government does break the contract, the company is still compensated. Since there is no risk, no reason not to continue.
Yes, there is quite a difference between contracts and legislation.
“No government can bind its successor” refers to legislation.
Expand your mind a little. Do you really think government needs to break a contract to render it worthless? Try this scenary: “Yes sir, your contract is in full force. You can frac all you want. But new EPA regs stipulate that no fossil-fueled equipment can be used in this area, including generators. Everything must be electric. No electric service here? That ‘s between you and the power company.”
Exactly. Playing to the gallery… just a sound bite for Tory supporters. Look at all the announcements on stopping channel migrants over the last few years… ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’
A coalition with the Greens? All one of them?
Coalition governments are extremely unusual in the UK.
Why the down-votes? M Courtney makes good points. Who would invest in any fossil-fuel projects that could be cancelled by the next Government?
If a future government does pull the rug out from under a company after the company has made investments based on government assurances, then that company will be entitled to compensation for lost investment.
There is a term for governments which unilaterally remove property rights without fair compensation.
I think it involves some sort of yellow fruit.
Once sovereign risk becomes a factor, the risk premium of any investment decision increases dramatically.
You mean like closing down coal-fueled power plants through expensive new regulatory requirements?
There will be no objections because it will avert a catastrophe that shows going green sucks. We need to be slowly boiling (or is that freezing?) frogs rather than waiting for the pot boil before we are chucked in.
Wow! What inspired all the down votes? M Courtney simply pointed out the political realities. The next ruling coalition could just as easily ban fracking again. In such an unstable environment that remains strongly opposed to mining domestic fossil fuels and is only unbanning fracking as an emergency measure to mitigate (a little) the energy suicide the ruling parties are committing, what company is going to risk drilling when it could get shut down before they make any money on their very large investment? It would indeed require the government doing more than just allowing fracking temporarily. It would require them to put up some money to cover potential losses for private compnies if they do pull the rug out from under them. The proletariat is vastly unhappy about the energy calamity but the ruling elites of the major parties all seem to remain committed to the fantasy of a rapid transition to wind and solar power to replace coal, natural gas, and petrol. I am skeptical that this is anything more than short-term political posturing.
Mr Courtney,
if the noise coming from Ms Truss is converted to action I suspect it will be far more popular than you think and we will not see a coalition (including the one green MP) take control.
I think there are more of the silent majority than is generally accepted, those that do not accept the extremes of climate change action?
I always thought sanity would return when the green madness started to seriously bite folks in the butt. I was getting a bit discouraged though. The end of the fracking ban gives me hope.
Now all we need is for politicians to stand up against the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hoax.
The compromise position is to accept that the renewable energy cure is much worse than the (supposed) global warming disease. For that, we just need the politicians to start listening to folks like Bjorn Lomborg.
CAGW justifies practically any political intervention in the economy. The last thing i would expect is for politicians (and their clents) to stand up against CAGW.
I’m having the same mixed opinions that you are as the MSM is very
powerful & can minimize the madness that was done to the people & its
pain. Beside that, they will ultimately blame the deniers for causing the pain
because they had the gall & nerve to interfere with the Warmunista’s good &
necessary policies & plans to stop the Climate Catastrophe in the first
place. It’s a case of heads they win, tails we lose!
Will anyone invest knowing the ban could return when the PM changes, or even next year? That’s too much risk.
“Will anyone invest”
Given there will be no windfall tax, then yes they will.
Once the Net Zero nonsense has been ditched and energy costs fall back to reasonable levels what PM would risk putting them up again by restarting Net Zero.
Anyone who thinks generatiing electricity using the weather is viable is clinically and criminally insane.
“Anyone who thinks generating electricity using the weather is viable is clinically and criminally insane.”
I think you just answered who, and that’s a lot of people.
What leftist ever admitted to being wrong?
The Climate Howlers and their propaganda are not stopping,
and with the general support of the government and media,
why would a Nut Zero implementation slowdown be more than temporary?
Most people still believe the planet must be saved and Nut Zero is the answer. They can still blame Putin in 2022, rather than Nut Zero itself.
I hope you’re right, Ben, but the power of the MSM & the dogged
determination of libs to win gives reasons to doubt that this
reality check will be enough to derail Nut Zero. Here’s an example
of how MSM is reporting the potential blackouts in California
caused by a current heat wave that’s mostly in the Central Valley
which has been very dry this summer. It’s about the only place in
the W US that has cooperated with their climate change schtick:
Axios AM Mike Allen 6 Sep 22
California ISO, the state grid operator, is predicting an all-time
record for power today, with a danger of blackouts.
Why it matters: This is a local manifestation of a cooking planet.
Climate change is making heat waves hotter, more frequent &
lasting longer.
Even though California’s been run by Dems for years &
that blackouts have occurred & they haven’t adjusted to
fix that problem, the story the MSM will push is that it
was the EVIL GOP that stood in the way of the cooking necessary Nut Zero plans to keep our planet from that
caused this catastrophe in the first place. This spiel
ignores the obvious that it was unreliable RE without
storage backup that’s the problem. Why let reality stand
in the way of a good story! Heads they win, tails we lose.
MSM standing by, as always:
“was the EVIL GOP that stood in the way of the cooking necessary Nut Zero plans to keep our planet from that”
S/B
“was the EVIL GOP that stood in the way of the necessary Nut Zero plans to keep our planet from cooking that”
Was held up in moderation- unable to correct earlier.
Mr. Greene,
You make a good point.
Brandon and the idiots whinge and whine about the reluctance of U.S. hydrocarbon producers to invest in domestic exploration and refining.
“Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Similarly, the morons in California are going to find out (the hard way) that nobody in their right mind will ever run the risk of expropriation (or constructive expropriation) of capital invested in any California fossil-fueled electricity generating operation.
I really wish you would at least attempt to think things through before posting.
Over the next two years there will be much employment created in Lancashire thanks to fracking. Assuming all goes to plan the cost of gas will fall and therefore electricity as well, to the public and the public purse.
If the Conservatives do lose the next election a ban on fracking would see the regions economy suffer and the nations economy nose dive as gas prices shoot up again.
Again, assuming things go to plan an incoming labour party would have to include their approach to fracking obvious in their manifesto, especially if they intent to reimpose restrictions. The Conservatives would make a meal of that, accusing labour of wrecking the country just as we are beginning a recovery.
By that time the fracking hysteria would have largely died down as the anticipated earthquakes won’t have happened. There will be geologist’s crawling all over the sites with event recordings coming out their ears.
Finally, do you really imagine Cuadrilla would agree to invest in fracking on the basis that a government could just stop them at a whim? There will be some sort of licence agreement entitling them to drill for the next ten years at least. Having spent years on the prospect they have spent millions so far that a couple of years might just cover.
Any Chief Exec. who didn’t insist on a 20 year licence would be sacked by the shareholders I expect.
Not a shortage of employment in Lancs… and locals very hostile to fracking, especially traffic considerations…
Have a pleasant winter griffool. !
May it be bitterly dank, like your mind.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks there won’t be local support for fracking and the jobs it will create should read Lorraine Allinsons story.
Since a well that has been fracked, can’t be un-fracked, there is no reason not to go ahead and frack while you can.
I think there’s only been exploratory wells sunk by Cuadrilla so far. However, there are other fracking sites across the country on a much smaller scale which have been operating for years to the best of my knowledge.
HS,
The 2 Cuadrilla wells are to be full production wells.
Expected to produce 4 to 8 million cubic feet per day each in the early months.
2 stages of one well have already been frac’d with strong results at the well head (.2 MMcfd from each stage).
First off, fracking once done, can’t be undone. So a future ban would only impact fracking venture from that point forward. It won’t affect any fracking that has already been done.
Secondly, if a ban does make investments worthless, the company has a right to sue for compensation.
About time. Quite what the true potential of this resource is remains to be seen, but deliberately not trying to exploit it has always seemed incredibly dumb to me. But if this is to get anywhere then the government will need to be prepared to overrule local objections and, more likely than not I suspect, stand up to many hysterical protestors.
Agree on checking out true potential. Not on rolling over local objections.
If this can be done economically using API best practices on – for examples – haz waste disposal, water use, flaring, NORM disposal, then they should gofer it.
But it looks like many of the current posters are prebutting the lack of good results and blaming them on those bad old folks who will make them do it right.
So your electric and gas and water should be shut off, so you can prove how sustainable your leftarded stupidity is, boob.
Wut? Please read my last post for comprehension. If UK shale exploitation can be done correctly, then they should KTSO.
But since, in the juiciest US play – the Permian – we will not replace 2022 reserves in 2023 (the low hanging DUC’s will be plucked and producing by then), and since the US has the worlds best oilfield service infrastructure, I have my doubts. Apparently you do as well, since your are intimating that ES&RC short cuts will be required. I can’t stop you from turning big parts of your countryside into trash cans, a la North Dakota and West Virginia, but your average common sense level seems higher than ours and I hope it prevails.
If you want to see trash cans , I suggest San Francisco or LA or NY or Detroit. Plenty of human waste and trash and destruction.
Agree. These are preferred destinations for everyone. Including the home free. This is a problem crying out for better management.
Now, how is it relevant to the shale trashing that I both know of, and have witnessed (and unsuccessfully proposed budgeting to ameliorate) as a petroleum engineering manager?
The same anti-human blahblah you always spew. Blow me, boob.
Those protesting the pipeline in ND left a lot more
trash than the frackers. Even the EPA, who make sure
no one litters Mother Gaia, caused more pollution at
the Colorado Gold King Mine- rules for thee,
but not for me!
BTW, the amount of trash left by protesters
& rally goers is proportional to the amount
of garbage spewed at these events! 😮
BTW, the amount of trash left by protesters
& rally goers is proportional to the amount
of LEFTIST garbage spewed at these events!
There, fixed!
Local objections are entirely unreasonable.
The rest of the world endures a bit of inconvenience because of fossil fuels, like having a petrol station closed when a tanker’s in to fill it. Frankly, that’s more inconvenience than these people will ever suffer, at worst, perhaps a teacup momentarily trembling on a shelf.
The benefits derived from fossil fuels far ought weighs the inconvenience.
Do you imagine a couple of blokes with a pick and shovel are going to turn up?
Of course they’ll follow best practice. They have waited long enough and invested enough money so far not to take sufficient precautions.
“Local objections are entirely unreasonable.”
Ah, the local Ben Dover for the “greater good”. Sorry hs. If they don’t want it, they don’t need a reason. That goes for resisting stewardship of nuc waste for thousands of generations, and it goes here. But AGAIN, I’m merely advocating for API best practices.
“The benefits derived from fossil fuels far ought weighs the inconvenience.”
Then let the beneficiaries pay fairly for that “inconvenience”. If you are willing to get paid for your surface damages, otay by me. But if you communally decide that the word of the drillers is not good (borne out all around the world), then you and/or your municipality should be allowed to tell them – in the nicest possible way – to f*** off.
FMI, who owns the mineral rights?
“Local objections are entirely unreasonable.”
Ah, the local Ben Dover for the “greater good”. Sorry hs. If they don’t want it, they don’t need a reason. That goes for resisting stewardship of nuc waste for thousands of generations, and it goes here. But AGAIN, I’m merely advocating for API best practices.
“The benefits derived from fossil fuels far ought weighs the inconvenience.”
Then let the beneficiaries pay fairly for that “inconvenience”. If you are willing to get paid for your surface damages, otay by me. But if you communally decide that the word of the drillers is not good (borne out all around the world), then you and/or your municipality should be allowed to tell them – in the nicest possible way – to f*** off.
“Of course they’ll follow best practice. They have waited long enough and invested enough money so far not to take sufficient precautions.”
You child. They will import a dozen or so US extractors to get them going. Believe me, no one short cuts better.
FMI, who owns the mineral rights?
So long as the same rules are applied to Wind and Solar…
Ben Dover for the Greater Good…If they don’t want gigantic wind turbines in their view, they don’t need a reason either
Agree with it all. If you can whip up a community majority, gofer it. Unfortunately for your POV, wind and solar are mostly popular. Especially wind, with it’s enduring rentals, minimal inconvenience for ranching/farming, low noise compared to reciprocating/rotating oil/gas field equipment, and sustainability. Unlike oil and gas, the value is in the site and is enduring. Old equipment will be disposed of per prior agreement, because, since the producers want to keep the site essentially in perpetuity, it’s in the best interest of the producers to do so.
Separately, UK’ers need to make the producers pony up and lockbox enough GBP’s to pay out P90 asset retirement obligations. Don’t be like us and face 11-12 $ figures of CONUS ARO’s, with pennies on the dollar actually committed, and with producer business plans that can only work by shirking them. IMO, just that will crush economic hurdle rates, even at these high prices.
Could it be that the rampant crony capitalism that prevails in the US is the main reason that developers of all types of energy production sites get away with trashing the environs?
For example, I understand that a hilltop forest nature reserve in Michigan or somewhere is to be razed so that a wind farm can be put there.
Plenty of that in other states too.
Considering all the materials that need to be mined for Wind (apart from subsidy mining) including Natural Gas for Petrochemicals to manufacture the blades and Coal to strip the Oxygen away from Iron Oxide to make the Strong Steel Masts there is nothing “sustainable” about Wind. Even the wind itself isn’t sustainable 24/7/365
Wut? Yes, it uses some expendable materials and requires maintenance. Who ever said differently? But the source is indeed sustainable.
Look at any of the many cradle to grave comparative assessments of different energy sources. Both from discounted CAPEX/OPEX and emissions/pollutions POV’s. Wind/solar kick relative ass. And that’s before adding in the “to be communized or skipped” costs of fossil fuel asset retirements.
This is getting progressively sillier. The only reason I’m spending the time is that I’m back from summering at Pismo Beach and am procrastinating on waxing my fiberglass bed hitch travel trailer. Bu bye….
The Queen owns mineral rights in the uk
The King now owns those rights in the UK.
The Crown or state owns hydrocarbon resources
Thanks both.
A New York, New York post. So good you had to say it twice.
Dumb comment of the day award.
Of course they need a reason, and they didn’t have one, which is why a minority group compliant government set ridiculous restrictions laid out rather well by fretslider:
Next Dumb comment of the day award:
So the locals of Lancashire are immune from energy cost increases somehow?
They are having their bills frozen with the rest of the UK taxpaying community paying for what they use. Maybe we should just tell them they can pay the full cost of rising prices e.g. that imposed on businesses which are now some ten times what they were a year ago. Free market after all.
Why should I pay for their gas when they are sitting on the solution to the country’s problems complaining about effects that are entirely unfounded.
Dumb comment No. 3:
Where is all this mound of evidence? An activist TV crew went around the US and collected evidence condemning fracking they presented as fact to a world that swallowed it. Trouble was, it was all demonstrable lies and it was proven as such.
If the evidence was so factually compelling, why did it take Ed Davey and his fanatical left wing, science free mob of political activists to invoke restrictions that are utterly outrageous rather than presenting evidence of genuine earthquakes and methane coming out of taps?
Probably the Crown if it’s not private land however, gas isn’t a mineral.
“gas isn’t a mineral”
The term applies to any extractable resource in the CONUS. Per previous posters, it belongs to the state.
4th Dumb comment of the day. Well there are more about the benefits of wind power but I’ll leave that for now.
Utter bollox. It does not belong to “the state”, it belongs to the Crown Estate “a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it “the sovereign’s public estate”, which is neither government property nor part of the monarch’s private estate.” (Wikipedia for convenience).
I stand corrected, and should not have echoed the other poster.
And? Can the monarchy refuse to lease?
“Can the monarchy refuse to lease?” In theory, yes. However, if the monarch went against the advice and policy of their own government there would be rather serious repercussions. In this case, I don’t think the monarchy would refuse permission.
Thx Richard. This might get tested, given todays events.
Try hard to resist being an idiot.
HotScot, something seems a bit off to me:
“if their operations triggered seismic activity at a level of 0.5”
0.5 what? If it’s Richter, which “seismic activity” suggests to me, I don’t think those numbers are measuring the same thing.
Note I’m not arguing your main point, that the restrictions are ridiculously tight, just trying to get more clear on what’s being said.
This won’t happen. The activity level will be low. The haz waste disposal well(s) will be drilled and completed to modern specs, and if the laws are paying attention, there will be more than enough of them. So, unlike the overworked, antique, Oklahoma Arbuckle haz waste disposal wells, I wouldn’t worry about earthquake swarms.
The likely outcome here is continued producer rent seeking. Give away lease terms, lobbying for breaks on best practices, foot dragging on drilling obligations, screwing the servicers, and, finally, worming out on freely assumed asset retirement obligations.
Posters here apparently agree, and are wanting to forgive “inconveniences” to benefit the drillers. FYI, fossil fuel use closely tracks income, but exposure to these “inconveniences” does just the opposite.
Wake me when there are some actual PDP reserves booked…
Tony G,
Foot stomping by exuberant fans at football games have regularly been measured at over 2 on the Richter scale.
As the Richter is a logarithmic scale, that 2 is WAY higher than .5.
Thank you, Joe, I had never heard that before.
Although it seems to me that the referenced stomping would be significantly stronger than a honeydew melon being dropped.
0.5 on the Richter scale which is not linear.
I am aware that it’s not linear.
Maybe I read it wrong…
Nope – OP I was referring to: “A honeydew melon dropping 2.055”
The paper referenced says the same. But the column of 2.055 is headed to indicate “mm/s”
Which goes back to my original question
“0.5 what? If it’s Richter, which “seismic activity” suggests to me, I don’t think those numbers are measuring the same thing.”
I don’t think the chart is saying the honeydew is 2.055 Richter, but it seems to me that the phrase “triggered seismic activity at a level of 0.5” WOULD be referring to Richter.
Or are you saying that a honeydew melon hitting the ground IS 2.055 Richter?
I’m trying to clarify the units used in the two statements, and I’m having a hard time accepting that a single honeydew melon hitting the ground generates a 2.055 Richter seismic wave.
Dave,
Full development of the Bowland and Weald Basins could provide a century’s worth of the UK’s natgas current usage.
If/when the unconventional hydrocarbon industry takes hold, smaller formations could add to rhe supply
Of course the green energy (Net Zero Policy) should be abandoned. CO2 is a good gas and cannot and does not cause climate change. This is primarily caused by the sun.
CO2 is a good gas but it does cause climate change
Not much change after 400ppm but some
Warmer winter nights in Siberia is the main change
Changes in sunlight can not explain the +0.5 degree C. warming since 1979, using UAH satellite data, especially because most warming was at dawn (TMIN) rather than TMAX in late afternoon.
TMIN warming is a symptom of a stronger greenhouse effect.
We have a lot of that.
TMAX warming would be a symptom of increased solar energy.
We have a little of that.
The big picture:
Who cares about +0.5 degrees C. warming since 1979, especially when the warming rate has slowed down in the past seven years to near zero?
Richard says:”Changes in sunlight can not explain the +0.5 degree C. warming since 1979, …”.
And having less CO2 in the atmosphere can’t explain why the Holocene Optimum was warmer than now.
CO2 is a good gas, but it does not cause climate change.
And having less CO2 in the atmosphere can’t explain why the Holocene Optimum was warmer than now.
There was no manmade CO2 in the atmosphere 5000 to 9000 years ago. It has since increased by +50%. You claim that had no effect on the climate. 99.9% of scientists would disagree, even the skeptic scientists. there are many other causes of climate change than CO2 levels.
Was the Holocene warmer than today?
We are in the current “Holocene” interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth’s orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth.
Where is there a single empirical, credible, scientific study which demonstrates this?
The last one attempted was by Berkeley Earth around 2015, but it failed like all the others.
And if, as is claimed, the science was settled even then, why did Berkley Earth have to spend millions to research it again?
I’m as respectful of Will Happer as you obviously are however, his is still a falsifiable, non empirical theory, no more.
I’m 100% with you on ‘The big picture’ however, sceptical science is about as flakey as conventional science on the subject of climate change.
CERES downwelling radiation measurements
C13 to C12 ratio measurements.
Lab spectroscopy measurements
The pattern of higher TMIN, at high latitudes, in the colder months, but not much effect on TMAX, especially in the Northern hemisphere since the 1970s. CO2 has the most greenhouse effect where water vapor is not much competition.
There is plenty of evidence of AGW – mild and harmless warming
There is no evidence of CAGW — rapid and dangerous warming
“Climate change” means CAGW these days
But CAGW is just a fig newton of overactive leftist imaginations
Nut Zero is real — a panic response to imaginary CAGW
Hard to believe this is happening but it is.
Hopefully the UK, Germany, Australia California and Texas will not be the canaries in the coalmine that change minds.
I’ve been following climate science for 25 years and still can’t believe how mamy people fear the future climate. I’ve lived with global warming for all 47 years since 1975 and love it.
People have no idea all 47 years included predictions of much faster warming that never showed up. And they have no idea warming stopped in the past 7 years (UAH data) because no one tells them the truth.
They only hear climate scaremongering and predictions of doom. For over 50 years. Yet they still believe the predictions of doom. The average IQ in the US is about 97 — that may explain why some people believe everything their government tells them. But many high IQ people believe too. What’s wrong with them?
Who could have predicted that Truss would turn out to be more Boris than Boris ever was?
Deben’s letter obviously went straight into the bin. That must be the first knock-back his precious committee has suffered. They even ducked responsibility – at least in part – for Grenfell Tower and the cladding scandals.
I saw a claim that fracked gas could be on stream from January 2023. If that were to prove correct it would be another nail in the coffin of the msm’s trustworthiness.
Those of us who remember Thatcher’s ‘dash for gas’ will remember it didn’t take long, certainly not the timescale claimed by the media.
It took about 5 years for the Forties Field in the North Sea to come on stream. This was one of the first discovered, in 1970, so was starting from scratch. In the 50+ years since there is more knowledge, infrastructure onshore and unemployed rigs laid up around the Scottish coast or being used as art installations. So new fields, even in more difficult waters should take less time to come online.
The fifty years claimed by the Greens like Lucas is for marginal fields discovered and put on hold until they became profitable. There must be a number of those that are now very profitable
Why stop at banning fracking?
The entire world should ban the banal CAGW scam, return to normal and stop wasting $quadrillions on a hoax…but alas..
Not quite there yet..
Inflecting a Death of a Thousand cuts to the CAGW scam will be so much more … entertaining.
I am with you watching the green farce fall apart is good humor.
CAGW is baloney — just a 50+ year old wrong prediction.
But if true, UK would ne benefit with a better climate from CAGW,
👍 👍 👍
CAGW is coming in the F U T U R E
It will always be coming in the F U T U R E
Someday, over the rainbow
You’ll see.
Just wait.
It’s coming.
Got lost in Scotland
Just like Cold Fusion
This is a good start, if the BBC scram then defund them and let them sink or swim.
It’s obvious any price capping achieved by borrowing is just a short term solution. It’s also obvious that weather generated electricity is expensive and unreliable. Nuclear will take too long, heat pumps and EVs are not a practical solution in the UK If Liz Truss realises this and has got the UK on an even keel or upward trajectory then she’ll win the next election. If the Iron Weathervane does that then frackers will have seven years of profits minimum
The limit placed on fracking by Ed Davey & Co in Parliament was if their operations triggered seismic activity at a level of 0.5
Here’s what that means in practice…
A network storage computer 0.642
1 kg of flour dropping to the floor 1.194
A honeydew melon dropping 2.055
http://datacat.liverpool.ac.uk/609/2/Seismic%20Context%20Measurements.pdf
That’s why fracking was made impossible.
I believe the British Geological Society said of one of the media’s supposed ‘earthquakes’ that it was probably a slip of perhaps 2 or 3 feet at some depth and would be almost impossible to find.
Next, I hope: The Telegraph rehires Delingpole.
The Telegraph has shot over to the left.
Delingpole has dug in at Breitbart.
Dellers’ last post at Breitbart is timestamped “10 Jan 2022, 10:56 AM PDT” (link to his archive there).
He occasionally posts at TCW (The Conservative Woman), or on his new Substack “blog”.
He publishes regularly at The Spectator.
Not (yet !) in my bookmarks.
Thanks for the pointer.
Delingpole seems to have become a Spectator TV/film critic. Go to the website and put his name into the search function.
He has been very quiet – is he really still working for Breitbart??
Words. Until this leftarded stupidity is driven out of government at EVERY level these words mean nothing.
All the BC, ABC, BBC, CBC need to be removed from a preferred status.
Just as NPR and PBS in the US.
When government finances media it is not news, it is propaganda.
There’s an endless army of eco-idiots that will physically frustrate any fracking attempts.
Currently they are drilling milk tanker tyres and occupying milk depots.
And an endless army of eco-lawyers to drag it all through the courts for year after year.
They will try and, at some point, find out that the rest of the UK outside of a few big cities doesn’t want to freeze in the dark and has turned on them. When they get hauled off and the charges get less of a joke and far more serious then the penny may well drop for many of them. The lawfare takes a rather different form in the UK – cases involving the testing of laws covering this sort of thing tend to get bumped up to the High Court and dealt with fairly swiftly, so no dragging it out for years and years; generally a quicker resolution.
Yes, and they are going to stop the channel crossings too, this time, really……!
Which takes time; time that you, quite obviously, have decided isn’t necessary and, because the crossings haven’t immediately ceased, the policy or the will must be at fault. Give it time to work and then we’ll see, stop demanding instant results the day after the measure’s are put in place.
The WHAP! you just heard is this ukase hitting BoJo on his way out the door.
And how does this change anything for this winter?
More empty political theater from elites who real don’t care if people starve and freeze.
With a price ceiling on energy bills, people will use more energy than they would have done with higher free market prices. They will be hooked on this new energy welfare program, so it will never die. I assume the government will bail out energy suppliers by subsidizing their unaffordable energy bills, or am I wrong about that?
Earth to Mars – Are you listening Mars?
Energy bills have been frozen (£2,400 per year for the average UK household). The October price cap hike was to be £3,500.
There is also an additional £400 per year given to every household to help with that frozen £2,500.
Truss has also promised tax cuts. The 2% or so Boris added to National Insurance would be a welcome reduction, perhaps the 5% VAT on energy that Boris pledged to eliminate but didn’t.
Any other daft questions?
Not the UK, just England and maybe Wales. The Scottish Goverment still has a fracking ban in place and I don’t see it being changed any time soon no matter what Westminster decides.
The Scottish government is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. The SNP need North Sea oil to make any sort of economic case for Scottish independence. However, the SNP is now in coalition with the Scottish Greens and it is their stated policy to stop any more oil wells being drilled in the North Sea. The Scottish Greens think that Scotland is too warm.
Not really important what Scotland decides at this point. Once fracking creates wealth in Lancashire and North Sea re-invigorates Aberdeen which has suffered from Net Zero over the last decade. The people may decide some unobtrusive in the Central Belt (the industrial area historically) is a better proposition than industrial scale windfarms across the Highlands with lines of monster pylons taking unwanted intermittent electricity south.
An early Shale Oil industry was created by Paraffin Young in West Lothian in the 1850s and 60s. He’d initially started in 1847 in Derbyshire. By the 1900s nearly 2 million tons of shale were being extracted annually, employing 4,000 men the industry hung on to the1950s and early 1960s. There will be people old enough to remember both the coming Ice Age and the Shale Bings in the 1970s. A bit of slick marketing of the return of shale fuels should do it.
You are right about Lancashire etc. but so long as The Fish Wife is,
or thinks she is, in charge she will fight very hard against fracking, and I am not sure that the Opposition is good enough to beat her.
If the Conservatives can stay the course then many of Sturgeon’s voters will see the big difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Pressure will mount for her to backtrack or lose power and Nicola Sturgeon will never relinquish power willingly.
At a guess, if UK hired experts and imported equipment, starting today there will be a 10 year building period before there is enough British natural gas to make a difference. Truss might be PM for another year.
Truss might last longer than you think. At the next general election, the new seat boundaries will be in force and this will give the Conservative Party another dozen seats. The Conservatives could lose 50 seats and still form a majority government.
Starmer stood up in Parliament today and congratulated Truss for her intervention.
He will never be allowed to forget that come the next general election.
Nigel Farage said last week the Tories are on course for a deluge defeat like they saw in 1997 – and ‘they deserve it’, he said
The bookmakers have the Conservatives as favourites to win the next general election. Presumably that is the smart money talking.
Griff, I didn’t realise that you were a fan of Nigel Farage.
Bill T,
Perhaps you are right, but few of the British and GB sources and writers that I’m reading seem to think very kindly toward her. It will be a cold and costly winter. Unless she dazzles, it seems unlikely that she’ll hold on to enough support to make a difference.
Considering that IMO the Crown will soon be openly and adamantly against any use of fossil fuels, anyone in the P.M. seat who is trying to do something sane with respect to fossil fuels and power production will likely run into a lot of headwind. I really hope she’s successful in this part of policy, but seems unlikely from here.
The US already has a shortage of manpower and fracking equipment.
Shortage of Frack Gear Is Helping to Hold Back US Oil Production (yahoo.com)
Logistics and politics may be stacked against making Britain (a) Great (power producer) Again.
Don’t talk utter nonsense. One fracking company has promised to begin delivering gas by January 2023 if given the go ahead now.
In all likelihood fracking companies have been preparing since the war in Ukraine.
I would be surprised if the fracking companies hadn’t been given the green light months ago.
Oh, well, if they’ve promised…
It is a long way from starting production to making up a significant existing shortfall. Even longer to stand up, convert, or restart sufficient gas fired electrical production. But I hope that you are right.
Hot Scot,
Cuadrilla has 2 stages already frac’d (out of a planned ~80) in the 2 already-drilled wells.
It is not unreasonable to anticipate that full completion efforts on both wells could be done in ~90 days from a definite, uninterrupted ‘go’ order.
Pipeline hook ups (and gas treatment) could extend the online hydrocarbon implementation to over a year.
Biggest unknowns might be the degree of political effort exerted to fully realize this huge, huge, hydrocarbon bounty.
UK will need a lot more than one!
Does the UK have pipelines to move the gas to where it is needed
Didn’t take that long in Pennsylvania at all, and it’s why natural gas prices are still lower in the USA than Europe.
dk,
You might want to (re?) visit history and learn what the Cowboys of Sherwood Forest achieved in one year’s time during WW 2.
42 American roughnecks increased oil production from 300 bbld to over 3,000.
If social/economic conditions plummet as severely as some expect, it can be surprising what concerted effort might accomplish.
Hope that you’re right. But Truss will likely do nothing without heavy green and Labour resistance. There is a long road between declaring an intent in ones first day in office, and actually lighting a flame.
Getting real in Britain.
Amazing how reality can intrude on ideological fantasies.
Will Britain stay the course on this new and long overdue policy?
Depends how bad things get this winter.
The political gamble is whether Truss not only has some solutions, but wherher the counry at large trusts her to get them implemented.
So far the usual suspects’ heads are exploding with truss derangement syndrome, which bodes well for her. Even Putin got in a sneer.
I am, I have to say, faintly impressed.
Judge a person by the quality of their enemies.
The brutality of the greens is apparent with their call for sacrifice and suffering for their cause. It must give them a real sense of superiority to impose harsh conditions. And for what, something that is not happening as they define it.
Brutality: savageness, ruthlessness, harshness, cruelty, inhumanity, truculency, viciousness, repression, atrocity, truculence and depravity.
No mention of NUTS.
Even if it is an average winter in the UK and the grid copes without power cuts there will be deaths from the cold. Many of those deaths would occur regardless of the huge energy bills but the numbers will be compounded by our wholly avoidable energy mess. At least two fracking wells are, to my understanding, still viable. It remains to be seen just how rapidly these can supply gas to the generators already in situ.
At least Truss has done what Johnson failed to do and has at least given the UK the chance of being energy self sufficient in the future since any nuclear energy projects will probably not mature in this decade, even with the SMRs already approved.
We need that gas to ensure the UK can meet baseload at all times especially given the games going on in the EU. The longer term benefits of a secure large local energy source will be realised in due course. Of course there may be protests but it is what happens this winter which may determine the best way forward.
If the fracked gas eventually brings UK energy prices down then that will be a bonus. Perhaps this will influence our European neighbours to look again at their own green policies.
Fix the dumpers once and for all Liz or they’ll dump on you-
Watch out, Liz Truss: this energy crisis may spark a climate revolution we can all get behind (msn.com)
Heh
Not exactly to with fracking but still to with Bizzy Lizzy
(and she damn well wants to be as well)
Quote:
Net Zero Watch Director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“The choice is clear. Liz Truss can save the economy, or she can shuffle the deckchairs once again”.
The policies recommended are unapologetically radical. The current crisis is the result of two decades of deeply misconceived energy policy and undoing these errors will take many years, with much harm and damage now inevitable.
The situation can only begin to improve if radical measures are applied immediately. Any attempt to maintain Net Zero “business as usual” will only prolong the agony and result in still deeper problems.
Amongst the measures Net Zero Watch believes to be mandatory are:
1. Suspension of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.
2. Restriction of trade over the gas and electricity interconnectors to the EU to emergency aid and system balancing only.
3. Reduction of the value of the Renewable Obligation certificate to zero (subsidy is unnecessary at current high market prices).
Together with other suspensions, such as subsidies to EVs and heat pumps, these policy changes could deliver savings in the region of £1500 per household in the coming winter, and a further £1200 in the winter of 2023/24.
I do like that bit about the intervconnectors, I was raving on here last night about how/why we were exporting so much leccy to Europe AND Norway, while seemingly we get a lot of our natural gas from Norway.
(When the energynumbers page talks about ‘Other’ as a source of generation, does anyone know what that actually is. I imagine it’s the STOR system of diesel gensets being called into action)
approval for any fracking rests not with UK govt, but with the local council…
Shale gas developments in Lancashire – Lancashire County Council
Companies looking to carry out exploratory investigations, followed by testing and possible extraction of onshore oil or gas, including shale gas, must apply for planning permission from the county council.
As the strategic planning authority, the county council is responsible for managing the planning process and determining planning applications in line with legislation and planning rules set out by the government as well as the policies of the local development plan
Lancashire County Council is committed to the principles of localism and the involvement of local communities in decisions that affect their environment, their health and safety and their well-being and resolves to respond to the Government’s forthcoming consultation that applications for fracking should be determined by local planning authorities in accordance with planning law and guidance
And they rejected it before:
Lancashire councillors’ decision to reject fracking ‘a serious setback for shale gas in UK’ | The Independent | The Independent
Just checked the specs on the 2 Cuadrilla shale wells.
One targeted the Upper Bowland at ~7,000 foot depth, the other – at ~7,500 hundred feet – the Lower Bowland.
Pretty thick pay zone.
Laterals were only ~2,500 feet, with only 2 short stages frac’d.
Flow hit .2 MMcfd indicating expected 4 to 8 million cubic feet produced at the outset.
Should the Brits proceed with developing both the Bowland and Weald basins, they would achieve natgas self sufficiency for about 100 years.
The death of the Queen and her funeral will fill all the media space. Now is the time to quickly get ahead with all the sensible energy changes before the media get bored with all their focus on the Queen and begin to focus on the green nuttery of Charles.
Hopefully the new King Charles III will comply with long-established convention, and restrict his involvement in politics to the ceremonial and constitutional duties of the monarch. We are well aware of his hypocritical views on fossil fuels, but perhaps a sense of duty could silence his eco-wackery.
Ms Truss will probably have other matters to which to attend for the next 10 days or so.
I can see no sense in allowing a veto by “local communities”. That will be interpretted as the opinions of local councillors and local pressure groups – there will not be local referenda. Why should there be, this is a national issue.
We do not allow local opinion to rule in areas of above average income (which might want to suppress income tax rates) or even in areas of high Green belt (where an alliance of Conservative controlled councills, double speak by Conservative Ministers) and the Planning Inspectorate arrange to build houses which locals do not want).
Does anyone know how long it might reasonably take to get fracked gas flowing and how long the rigs need to recoup the cost. Also, how many wells are there which can be brought on stream quickly (how long is that) and how many more are likely to be found in time to pipe product within (say) 5 years.
Lastly, as the UK has inadequate refining capacity for petrol and diesel, can we be sure our product can be refined.
Supposedly gas could flow by end of year but probably not much
The terrible inflation of the 1970’s, at least in the US, was defeated by a combination of demand-limitation (Volcker’s Fed massively raising interest rates) and supply-enhancement
(Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts on top of capital gains tax cuts and deregulation started under Jimmy Carter).
Truss, unlike Demonic Biden of the Red Haze, seems to get this.
Every possible enhancement of supply matched by moderate demand limitation by the Fed is in order in the US, and by similar institutions throughout the world (there is clearly a worldwide aspect to the current inflation.)
Meanwhile, the Green political movement must die an appropriate death.
After the well-organized anti-fracking protests, they can all book vacation trips to the beach in Mexico for some well-earned relaxation. Griff?
Mexico’s oil company acknowledges releasing methane plume – ABC News (go.com)
A small victory, but I’ll take it. Now, convert Drax to coal, build a bunch more coal generation plants, tear down the bird and bat choppers, and we’ll really have a great trend going.
So they lifted the ban.
Now we see how much Thatcher she has in her as the ER looney tunes are going to go bonkers.
I’ll send a pail of sulphuric acid to burn off the glue holding them to the pavement
Can Truss travel to Wells and then proclaim that Charles shall be passed over in favor of Anne, declaring it necessary for “the greater good”.
Would be so good.
Seriously, she would be so much better at this, Charles and Trudeau can get their toys and go play in the garden trying to grow enough food without fertilizer.
Both are clowns, why not.?
Charles automatically became King the moment Queen Elizabeth passed away, there is no ‘passing over’, no choice, no voting or popularity contest – Charles is King. Anne, although Princess Royal, is pretty much out of the line of succession (15th) – you’d have to go through all of the male heirs before you get to Anne, unfortunately.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Can’t hurt to dream
“For the greater good”, Hot Fuzz
I would advise against thinking along those lines, or dreaming of a ‘way’ as you will quickly realise that Prince Andrew and the husband of the wicked witch of the west coast are before Anne in the succession, which is too awful a thought to contemplate.
Details on the Truss proposal from The Daily Mail:Online:
Energy bills will be capped at a typical £2,500 for households from October 1 for two years
Expect Putin to have a say in fracking in the UK.
How fracking was killed by Green lies and Russian propaganda
https://bit.ly/3hCS9qt
2019
Matt Ridley
“…The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.” Pro-Russian politicians such as Lord Truscott (married to a Russian army colonel’s daughter) made speeches in parliament against fracking.
As night follows day, Tory politicians lost courage and slipped into neutrality then opposition.
And, here.
Report Reveals Russia Is Behind Green Energy Propaganda – “Russian Dark Money Funded Green Groups in the West”
4/6/22
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/report-unveils-russia-behind-green-energy-propaganda-russian-dark-money-funded-green-groups-west/?
There will never be fracking in the U.K., the country is politically and intellectually incapable of such a rational energy step.
If all the investment into renewables – or even half if it – had gone instead into development and rollout of advanced (including fast-breeder) modular fission reactors, then the west would have no vulnerability to blackmail – or retaliation to NATO aggression – based on hydrocarbon supply.
As it is though, we went for wind, solar and fusion and we now have our trousers around our ankles.
Durachki
As US Cultural Ambassador Anton Chigur once said:
“If the rule you lived by brought you to this – of what use was the rule?”