And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
So no need for a ban then, right?
Debatable. If they had been subject to proper regulation then no. As it was I would have been unhappy with them drilling near me in a way that I am certainly not unhappy about the extensive conventional oil fields around me.
This was a failure of Governance again. But in the end it makes no difference. Fracking will not solve any of our energy problems. At least not in this country.
It's not really debatable though is it? Fracking would still have been subject to various planning laws and safeguards, and therefore I find your equivocation about an outright ban on a form of economic activity to be odd, and out of step with your usual principles as I understand them.
I infer from your posts on this issue that your perspective is one of a disgruntled competitor to fracking rather than the theoretical supporter of it that you claim to be, and therefore whilst I respect your knowledge of geology, I take all your statements about the potential of fracking with that caveat in mind.
Alastair Campbell's favourite footnote (page 12) We note that Mr Johnson has recently undertaken to supply the Covid public inquiry with a large number of his personal WhatsApp messages. This contrasts with his highly restrictive release of such messages to us. If it transpires from examination of the WhatsApp messages supplied to the Covid inquiry that there was relevant material which should have been disclosed to us either by Mr Johnson or the Cabinet Office, this would be a serious matter which the House might need to revisit. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/
Alastair Campbell. Now, if we are going to talk about ‘untruths’ made to Parliament, that name comes up very high on the list of people responsible for such.
Indeed, though it is a fun footnote. It would be funnier if he was so bloody minded, obstructive, and combative, that he failed to make what might have been a good case in his own defence - I've seen that happen many time with people who react to investigations as a personal affront and lose all perspective and proportion.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
What we in the UK do about it is almost inconsequential. It's what countries like China and India do or don't do that's important.
Yes, and both countries are already suffering markedly from climate change, yet still rolling out more carbon producing power.
It's why I am defeatist on the subject. I expect the planet to still be habitable in my lifetime, but may not be in my children's lifetimes.
I agree with the problem. I think a lot of people believe that reducing CO2 output (like halving inflation for Rishi) will reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. It won't. It increases it. And Net Zero is miles off - perhaps unattainable in practice without global scaling up of CO2 removal (Climeworks etc), which is also unlikely to be attainable.
The best hope therefore is the science being wrong (unlikely but not impossible) or an early onset ice age. Ditto.
The next best hope is that the benefits (Shetland Chateau bottled, the Greenland breadbasket) outweigh the bad side. Also unlikely.
You said this the other day and whilst I understand your point I would very much dispute the analogy.
Inflation is a measure of how much something is going up. By definition if there is inflation then it is going up.
Reduciung CO2 output is not analagous because at the same time there are natural systems removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Once you get to the point where the amount we put into the atmosphere is less than the amount being taken out - which is what net zero is supposed to be abut - then the amount in the atmosphere will begin to drop. We will still be putting CO2 into the atmosphere but the overall amounts will start to decrease. (simplistic explanation as there are lots of mechanisms which complicate it but the basic principle is sound)
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
Is there room for two players in the market ? Production will be economic only if ramped up quickly and at scale, so I’m pretty dubious about our prospects.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Given the messaging of recent years has insisted that utterly impossible targets are the only way to prevent an utter catastrophe I think it has been clear the planet is pretty scewed for some time.
I for one don't think that means we should just give up on continuing to transition to greener solutions, and speed it up wherever we can, but it's the vocal green campaigners who have made it so clear we've basically missed our chance to avoid catastrophe, so I don't think anyone should be surprised if even some who agree lots must be done that there's not, within the UK (and every nation that is not a massive contributor), a resigned perception that there's not that much additional harm to slowing some measures, on top of the harm that we are told is inevitable.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
'WE' are less than 1% of the global population and already use more renewables and less fossil fuels than the global average.
As we are also seeing it also means more Mediterrenean style summers in the UK which is good for our tourism industry even if Southern Europe gets Middle Eastern and North African temperatures regularly and becomes too hot for many tourists.
So not all bad for us at least, plus it will boost the English wine industry too. You may get people holidaying in Blackpool and Southend and Bournemouth again rather than Spain and Greece and avoiding the higher costs of plane tickets as fuel prices rise
Being "beyond wrong" describes an individual who not only holds an incorrect viewpoint but also demonstrates a profound unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives or accept contradictory evidence. It goes beyond the realm of normal disagreement or fallibility and signifies a state of stubbornness, willful ignorance, or cognitive bias. These individuals often exhibit confirmation bias, selectively seeking information that aligns with their preconceived notions while dismissing opposing viewpoints. They may resort to logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or unsubstantiated claims instead of engaging in rational discourse. Furthermore, being "beyond wrong" often involves a lack of empathy or ethical consideration for the potential harm caused by their beliefs. The impact of someone being "beyond wrong" can be significant, as it hampers personal growth, impedes constructive conversations, and can perpetuate misinformation or irrational ideologies that hinder societal progress. Addressing this issue requires promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and empathy while fostering a culture of intellectual humility that values learning from mistakes. By doing so, we can encourage open dialogue and mitigate the negative effects of being "beyond wrong."
Yes, anyone who does not conform to the left liberal consensus must be ignored and attacked as 'beyond wrong'. And left liberals like you wonder why you often end up losing to populist rightwingers like Trump, Boris, Abbott and Meloni!
Boris! is "beyond wrong". It is not the "left liberal consensus" saying this, it is the facts, as judged by a panel including senior Tories.
Your problem - and I do mean you personally - is that you espouse political amorality. You have no interest in facts or right and wrong. You just want your side to win. Which is a significant part of why our politics are so hated by the general public.
Whatever happened to responsibility? Accountability? Conscience?
You want your left liberal side to win too. Did you vote Conservative in 2019 even when Boris won a landslide victory? No
Left and liberal are different things. There are (or perhaps used to be) liberals in the Conservative Party. They used to have a pretty solid grip of the Conservatives, in fact.
Both left and liberal can mean almost anything. IMHO the most useful is to use 'liberal' as describing a philosophical and procedural position about how any open society should be run (maximally free etc, minimum compulsion) and 'left' to describe the spectrum of policy movements committed to maximal state intervention to achieve agreed goals such as equality of outcome, progressive taxation and state directed economic strategy.
All sane political parties should be liberal about personal freedoms and rights. Left, right etc is all to play for.
Why? Why should it be sane to have open door immigration, legalised heroin and child pornography and abortion up to birth and trans men pre op in womens bathrooms? Which is the logical conclusion of all political parties being fully liberal about personal freedoms and rights
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
Is there room for two players in the market ? Production will be economic only if ramped up quickly and at scale, so I’m pretty dubious about our prospects.
Two but not 3 - and I suspect are chances of being 1 of those 2 are rapidly slipping away.
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
So no need for a ban then, right?
Debatable. If they had been subject to proper regulation then no. As it was I would have been unhappy with them drilling near me in a way that I am certainly not unhappy about the extensive conventional oil fields around me.
This was a failure of Governance again. But in the end it makes no difference. Fracking will not solve any of our energy problems. At least not in this country.
It's not really debatable though is it? Fracking would still have been subject to various planning laws and safeguards, and therefore I find your equivocation about an outright ban on a form of economic activity to be odd, and out of step with your usual principles as I understand them.
I infer from your posts on this issue that your perspective is one of a disgruntled competitor to fracking rather than the theoretical supporter of it that you claim to be, and therefore whilst I respect your knowledge of geology, I take all your statements about the potential of fracking with that caveat in mind.
Planning laws were not the issue. The issue was the basic safety and environmental rules under which fracking was being allowed to take place. The Government chose to exclude fracking from the rules which cover all other oil and gas exploration activites and instead have it covered by the normal onshore HSE rules which are simply not suited for such activity.
You can make all the ad hom attacks you like but given that fracking was a potential employer for me when conventional oil and gas is getting more difficult you would be 100% wrong. It is sad that when you are faced with basic facts which negate your argument you have to resort to smears to try and save your position.
I am a bit defeatist about climate change as far too few people care enough about it to reduce consumption sufficiently, at least before it is too late to make a difference.
We are going to make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and many species extinct in the rest of this century, and will just have to accept the consequences of this global tragedy of the commons, from mass migration to rising seas, to famine and disease.
Sadly, I think you are right. When even the smart people on this forum will bend over backwards to justify or excuse the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (no, somebody else has to reduce production, not us), then I think the world is likely to become a grim place for our descendants. We had our chance, and we blew it.
While I of course agree with your sentiment, I'll be a bit pedantic:
Extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is not in itself the problem. Releasing CO2 (and methane) into the atmosphere as a result of their use is the problem. So turning oil into plastics, turning natural gas into blue hydrogen (with carbon capture) or burning coal for power generation (with carbon capture) are not the same as unabated combustion and emission or, worse still, venting of associated gas or leakage from the gas mains.
Indeed. What we need to do is reduce CO2 entering the atmosphere. This is a consumption side effect. Do what you want, but emit no CO2.
Trying to ban production in the childish hope that the Saudis will shut their country down by example won’t work. What will work is methodically changing over to zero carbon emission consumption.
If no one is making ICE cars - which could happen quite soon - the Saudis can’t sell their oil for petrol. And they haven’t got the skills to make cars.
Repeat for other industries.
No one else will turn off production - the big producers economies are too dependent on it. Make carbon emissions obsolete instead.
Gas is a wonderful way to create energy, and our country is blessed to have an abundance of it. Those who would diminish our domestic industry in favour of imports are simply saboteurs of our economy.
That's you told, SKS....
To start with, natural gas doesn’t create energy.
It contains existing stored energy.
We don’t have an especial abundance of it. We couldn’t produce (any more) enough to “ power the country”
We need something else.
The cost of wind, solar are dropping. We should definitely look more at tidal.
The advantage of all of those is that the price doesn’t depend on which world leader is channeling Hitler*, this week.
The not cooking the planet this is a side benefit.
*Why can’t a world leader channel Zsa Zsa Gabor for a change?
I don't know who you think you're quoting with "power the country", because it's not me. I don't think anyone, talking about any part of the energy sector, has said that they can "power the country" in isolation. However, everything I did actually say is, pedantry aside, completely true. We should be exploiting North Sea Oil and Gas more, in preference to costly imports.
Neither wind nor solar are profitable without subsidy, and they never will be. 'Getting cheaper' doesn’t put them on any sort of path to economical viability. We should try and make the best of wind by upgrading the grid (the UK grid, not continental interconnectors), and gradually starving wind providers of all subsidies save those aimed at getting them to add storage capacity.
I agree, we should do tidal. It is reliable, durable, emission-free, and safe. That's probably why we're not doing it.
Actually unlikely to be any Leopard operators, so that rules out Greece. Bulgaria is a possibility - lots of relatively modernised T72s, and wanting out of Moscow’s influence.
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
I’d buy at a fixed price for a set performance. Payment on delivery.
Yes, it would need to be a very complex contract, with some hard-nosed accountants and lawyers on the government side.
It’s undoubtedly a national benefit, if they can run a production line of SMRs.
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
So no need for a ban then, right?
Debatable. If they had been subject to proper regulation then no. As it was I would have been unhappy with them drilling near me in a way that I am certainly not unhappy about the extensive conventional oil fields around me.
This was a failure of Governance again. But in the end it makes no difference. Fracking will not solve any of our energy problems. At least not in this country.
It's not really debatable though is it? Fracking would still have been subject to various planning laws and safeguards, and therefore I find your equivocation about an outright ban on a form of economic activity to be odd, and out of step with your usual principles as I understand them.
I infer from your posts on this issue that your perspective is one of a disgruntled competitor to fracking rather than the theoretical supporter of it that you claim to be, and therefore whilst I respect your knowledge of geology, I take all your statements about the potential of fracking with that caveat in mind.
Planning laws were not the issue. The issue was the basic safety and environmental rules under which fracking was being allowed to take place. The Government chose to exclude fracking from the rules which cover all other oil and gas exploration activites and instead have it covered by the normal onshore HSE rules which are simply not suited for such activity.
You can make all the ad hom attacks you like but given that fracking was a potential employer for me when conventional oil and gas is getting more difficult you would be 100% wrong. It is sad that when you are faced with basic facts which negate your argument you have to resort to smears to try and save your position.
I haven't 'resorted' to anything, my position is that I take your pronouncements on the economical viability of fracking with a dose of skepticism - that has been my view for a some time; and unshockingly it hasn't changed during the course of this discussion.
And increasingly inevitable so long as we keep on extracting and burning fossil fuels (with the absurd justification that we don't actually burn all of it so it's fine to keep drilling).
If we just start importing and burning fossil fuels then everything will be better instead? 🤦♂️
Well it does seem to me that it would make more sense to keep our reserves under the ground until they are needed for the production of plastics, lubricants, etc, rather than burning most of them all now! Both economically and environmentally.
No it doesn't because the sunk costs mean that once you end North Sea drilling you will never go back to it again. I can count on half of one hand the number of North Sea fields that have been restarted after abandonment. Indeed I did the geosteering for Yme field which was the only field in Norway where this was ever attempted - it failed.
Well how about we continue producing from the fields that are already in production and don't start any new ones?
Not practical. For those fields to remain ecomomic they need continual development and infill drilling as well as near field development. Otherwise you get to the point where it simply isn't worth maintaining the field for the returns. And the company then decides it is better spending its money elsewhere in the world where it will get better returns over a longer period.
So we end up importing our oil and gas from those places which have far poorer environmental, safety and social records and the process of transportation creates a bigger carbon footprint than if we had carried on with the North Sea. It is simply exporting and expanding our pollution.
But, globally speaking, oil production has to drop if consumption is to drop, and there's no obvious reason why the UK should have special dispensation to increase production while others have to cut production. Especially as North Sea oil isn't particularly energy efficient due to the difficulty of pumping it from under the sea bed (though better of course than environmentally devastating production from tar sands).
Others are not cutting production except in response to demand and to manipulate the price (OPEC).
Deal with demand, not supply. The latter will follow the former.
And in terms of energy efficiency for extraction the North Sea is far better than practially every other place on earth. Go look at how they do things in Mexico or Indonesia or Vietnam. All places, incidently, that UK companies are moving investment and exp[loration money to away from the UK.
According to this source, North Sea oil is near the middle of the field when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions:
Only in terms of its extraction (you punch a hole in the ground and the oil comes out). But it is also some of the most polluting oil in the world (leaving aside the heavy stuff from Canada and Venezuela). It is massively high in H2S and refining it is a real problem. 100ppm of H2S will kill you. Where we were drilling in the Empty Quarter back in the late 80s the concentration was 350,000 ppm - 35%. For the same reason, it is also poorly suited for many petrochemical applications.
On top of that their environmental controls are pretty much zero.
And that is all before you start having to transport it around the world.
(Sorry to be a pedant, but transportation costs are very modest in the general scheme of things - I doubt more than 0.5% of total CO2 emissions from a barrel of oil.)
That's not a small amount. And for gas, there's also liquefying it for transit.
Not that actual carbon emissions would have any bearing on the enthusiasm of certain people to destroy the UK industry.
Would you like to look into the amount of energy required to hydraulically fracture rock, and to compare it to liquification and transport costs required?
There's a reason why you can buy gas from the Australian Northwest Shelf, to liquify it, transport it half way around the world, and it's still cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) than UK tight gas.
This I do agree with entirely. Fracking was always a non starter in the UK both economically and practically.
Neither of you are even close to impartial on this topic - next.
Strange thing to say. As I have said in the past I would love fracking to be economic and practical. It would mean loads more work for me given my skills are directly transferable. - and indeed one of my closest friends who used to work for me before he retired was working on the fracking job outside Blackpool.
So if I am partial, it is in favour of fracking as a concept.
But even that partial view cannot overcome the fact that geology and human distribution of the British Isles precludes fracking being an economic or practical proposition.
Even were we to adopt the German open cast mining system of simply destroying towns and villages that get in the way, fracking would still not be a practical proposition for the UK.
You have afaicr complained at length before about the fracking industry and what you perceive to be its unregulated working practises. If that wasn't you, I take it back.
Indeed. I think it is telling that the Government chose not to apply the same stringent rules to fracking as they do to conventional drilling both onshore and offshore. It tells me that there is an issue there which the Government would rather not address.
But if you could make it work (applying the same rules as the rest of the oil and gas industry) I would be delighted. It would mean more work for me.
But you can't. Even with bending the rules (or scrapping them entirely) it STILL isn't economic. You can't change the rocks.
Perhaps we really need to put our elbow into the rock fracturing?
{Project Gasbuggy has entered the chat, giving everyone a rosy glow}
For those who are a bit literal - it didn’t work.
Still like my idea for practical thermonuclear power - think giant internal combustion engine…
Talking about nuclear - anyone know the state of play with Rolls Royce Mini Nuclear plants and the funding they were after from the Government.
Meanwhile, of course, the US Government are throwing money at any plausible plan.
There was the £200m investment from a couple of years ago, but very little more recent than that. Yes, the govt should underwrite the first half a dozen off a production line, it’s a massive export potential.
Is there room for two players in the market ? Production will be economic only if ramped up quickly and at scale, so I’m pretty dubious about our prospects.
There’s room for two players, like PCs and Macs. There won’t be room for two players if the first one ends up like a Google or Facebook. Time is of the essence.
Comments
I infer from your posts on this issue that your perspective is one of a disgruntled competitor to fracking rather than the theoretical supporter of it that you claim to be, and therefore whilst I respect your knowledge of geology, I take all your statements about the potential of fracking with that caveat in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Export
Who’s the European customer ?
Greece ?
Inflation is a measure of how much something is going up. By definition if there is inflation then it is going up.
Reduciung CO2 output is not analagous because at the same time there are natural systems removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Once you get to the point where the amount we put into the atmosphere is less than the amount being taken out - which is what net zero is supposed to be abut - then the amount in the atmosphere will begin to drop. We will still be putting CO2 into the atmosphere but the overall amounts will start to decrease. (simplistic explanation as there are lots of mechanisms which complicate it but the basic principle is sound)
Production will be economic only if ramped up quickly and at scale, so I’m pretty dubious about our prospects.
I for one don't think that means we should just give up on continuing to transition to greener solutions, and speed it up wherever we can, but it's the vocal green campaigners who have made it so clear we've basically missed our chance to avoid catastrophe, so I don't think anyone should be surprised if even some who agree lots must be done that there's not, within the UK (and every nation that is not a massive contributor), a resigned perception that there's not that much additional harm to slowing some measures, on top of the harm that we are told is inevitable.
Still not over this Old English word, which feels like an entire philosophy in itself. From dūst (“dust”) + sċēawung (“inspection, contemplation”).
https://twitter.com/MayaCPopa/status/1669010244259700736
You can make all the ad hom attacks you like but given that fracking was a potential employer for me when conventional oil and gas is getting more difficult you would be 100% wrong. It is sad that when you are faced with basic facts which negate your argument you have to resort to smears to try and save your position.
Trying to ban production in the childish hope that the Saudis will shut their country down by example won’t work. What will work is methodically changing over to zero carbon emission consumption.
If no one is making ICE cars - which could happen quite soon - the Saudis can’t sell their oil for petrol. And they haven’t got the skills to make cars.
Repeat for other industries.
No one else will turn off production - the big producers economies are too dependent on it. Make carbon emissions obsolete instead.
Neither wind nor solar are profitable without subsidy, and they never will be. 'Getting cheaper' doesn’t put them on any sort of path to economical viability. We should try and make the best of wind by upgrading the grid (the UK grid, not continental interconnectors), and gradually starving wind providers of all subsidies save those aimed at getting them to add storage capacity.
I agree, we should do tidal. It is reliable, durable, emission-free, and safe. That's probably why we're not doing it.
Bulgaria is a possibility - lots of relatively modernised T72s, and wanting out of Moscow’s influence.
It’s undoubtedly a national benefit, if they can run a production line of SMRs.
NEW THREAD