The Tories come out as PRO climate change

[noblegiraffe]

WTF. A series of policy announcements that position the Tories as pro-climate change because they think it won them Uxbridge?

This tweet by Grant Shapps announcing new gas and oil licenses to spite Just Stop Oil is just gobsmackingly awful.

It's not Just Stop Oil who are saying that we can't do this, it's international experts.

"Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director and one of the world’s foremost energy economists, told the Guardian: “If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.” And that was 2021.

While we watch mainland Europe experience terrible wildfires and storms, with the memory of our own awful heat wave last year fresh in our minds, the government comes up with what they think are funny tweets about how the UK is going to actively contribute to a worsening crisis?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/no-new-investment-in-fossil-fuels-demands-top-energy-economist

Chris Skidmore, a Tory MP who actually cares about climate change has issued a statement condemning this policy being announced while parliament is on recess and has called for an emergency debate. https://twitter.com/cskidmoreuk/status/1685948524033130498?s=61&t=U9XrcF693-JpMxeIueYG7g

the argument is that yes, we will be producing more gas and oil from these fields, but that means that we won't be getting it from elsewhere (e.g. Russia), therefore this doesn't present an increase in gas and oil consumption.

Yep! You got it.

Doesn't that argument rely on production elsewhere being reduced by the amount that will be generated by the extra oil and gas produced by the North Sea?

No, because we produce far less than we consume, even though we are consuming less year on year. We produce 751 BBL/D but consume 1,317 BBL/D.

See my first post for details on how we’ve cut consumption and are continuing to cut it.

It won’t represent a net increase in world production because existing wells are always producing less year on year. So you constantly need new wells to maintain or even taper off worldwide supply. They’re not like water wells.

So you constantly need new wells

So this is new investment.

And new production.

And the IEA report says that we shouldn't be doing this?

@onefinemess Someone gets it.

Channel 4's Ciaran Jenkins dissects Rishi Sunak's claims and finds it wanting.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1686078885056692233?s=20

The UK export 80% of N Sea oil. We import 4% of our gas from Russia. And we buy & sell both on the international market which we can’t control.

They know they're going to lose the election. They have no money to spend on anything. Chasing the bigot vote by proposing scrapping 20mph zones and going for fossil fuels is absolutely the bottom of the barrel.

The whole Brexit project was trying to tell people the UK can rewind time to the 70s (when they were young). This is an attempt to wring a bit more juice out of a very squeezed old lemon.

mmmm this oil/gas will belong to private companies, they will sell it on the world market, approx 80% of this oil/gas will be exported, we will import as before but as its not enough to effect price, we, the consumer, will not benefit.

What will matter is when the UK says to other countries "Look we are facing a climate emergency, you should cut back your oil/gas consumption"

Its a great pity we went for a taxation model with the NS instead of Norway's Ownership one, we used the bonanza that should have been NS to cut taxes and look what its given us? SFA.

Imagine the UK now with huge storage capacity, a Sovereign wealth fund and a lot less inequality?

The companies cannot just sell it on the open market. The U.K. gets right of first refusal per the licence T&Cs. Where did you come up with “80% will be exported” when these licenses won’t even come close to replacing what we import? It’s more like less than 10% will be exported and only after we refuse to buy it probably due to lack of storage (we have very little storage for oil and gas you are spot on about that).

Ok, so we are shifting from Fatih Birol’s advice which wasn’t actually saying what you thought it was in the OP, to an info box on a chart in a report likely written by a staffer that has no knowledge of the fact that oil and gas deposits are not like water wells that will produce 250gpms for centuries at a time. If it were water, new wells plus old wells would equal more water. This isn’t how it works with oil and gas. The wells are really deposits and once it’s tapped out, it’s gone. Dry/empty well.

This idea that the oil and gas wells we already have will just keep on pumping out the same amount of oil and gas is incorrect. They wrote “no new” but what is really meant is “no more/no increase” in production globally as the objective is to reduce our consumption by burning.

To reduce oil/gas we still need new wells as we reduce consumption because the old/current wells constantly get tapped out with no more oil/gas to be drawn from them.

The U.K. roughly imports as much oil (both crude and refined) as it exports, this is because we lack storage.

The Gov paper I posted discusses how they want to change all that as it’s a huge carbon footprint to try and game the international market by selling our oil high and buying in oil low. Domestic gas is also one quarter the carbon footprint of imported. They are building storage for it all under a carbon capture program.

The licenses are flexible- so include expanding existing areas as Fatih Birol advised (I quoted him extensively in an earlier post): “By adopting a more flexible application process, licences could also be offered near to currently licensed areas – unlocking reserves which can be brought online faster due to existing infrastructure and previous relevant assessments.”

One quarter of our energy needs will still be met by oil/gas even when we are at net zero carbon “With the independent Climate Change Committee predicting around a quarter of the UK’s energy demand will still be met by oil and gas when the UK reaches net zero in 2050,”

This isn’t “more” oil or gas, this is part of plan to reduce imported oil/gas while reducing overall consumption:
“As the UK is a rapidly declining producer of oil and gas, new oil and gas licences reduce the fall in UK supply in order to ensure vital energy security, rather than increase it above current levels – so that the UK remains on track to meet net zero by 2050.”

The reason we export/import is due to lack of storage, that is also being fixed
”The Government has confirmed that projects Acorn in North East Scotland and Viking in the Humber have been chosen as the third and fourth carbon capture usage and storage clusters in the UK. The Government has already committed to deploy CCUS in two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s – the HyNet cluster in North West England and North Wales, and the East Coast Cluster in the Teesside and Humber – and another further two clusters by 2030 – now confirmed as Acorn and Viking. Together, these four clusters will build a new carbon capture usage and storage industry, which could support up to 50 000 jobs in the UK by 2030.”

https://www.oilfieldtechnology.com/drilling-and-production/31072023/hundreds-of-new-oil-and-gas-licenses-to-be-granted-in-the-uk/

Oh, meant to post this on import/export of oil.
The UK imported £30.0 billion of oil in 2021 (£17.6 billion crude oil, £12.4 billion refined oil), and exported £28.3 billion of oil (£17.9 billion crude oil, £10.4 billion refined oil).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/trendsinukimportsandexportsoffuels/2022-06-29

I disagree. It will be the editors of The Sun, The Express and The Daily Mail who decide. As they did in 1997.

Or their owners. Murdoch for example is known for directing the papers he owns to print certain views. In the U.K. he owns the Sun, The Times and the Sunday Times.

@AP5Diva Good posts by the way.

Back to the decision makers.

Daily Mail, owned by DMGT, majority owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere. Age 55. From Wikipedia:

The BBC's Newsnight programme at the end of January 2017 reported that David Cameron, when Prime Minister, had approached Lord Rothermere to sack Eurosceptic Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail in the run up to the 2016 EU membership referendum.[10] A representative of Lord Rothermere refused to confirm or deny the story, although a spokesman for Cameron confirmed that he had tried to persuade both Dacre and Rothermere over the vote. Rothermere's representative told the media: "Over the years, Lord Rothermere has been leant on by more than one prime minister to remove Associated Newspapers' editors but, as he told Lord Justice Leveson on oath, he does not interfere with the editorial policies of his papers".

Just a handful of people really do control the votes when it comes to it. Most people believe what they read on the side of a bus.

No space for critical thinking, for questioning everything. No sense these days of asking "Who am I? What do I stand for?".

UK exports most of its production as its either the "wrong" type of oil we need or most importantly, we have limited refining capacity.

Our two biggest export markets are Netherlands and China!

Don't know about your First Refusal claim... i mean the UK Govt doesn't buy oil from Shell etc (what would it do with the stuff?) so who gets this entitlement to buy at discounted rates?

I think their influence is less than it was in previous elections, far smaller readerships than ever before.

All the right wing media have been pushing the Tory agenda for years now but still Lab have a 20pt lead and Starmer is considered more trustworthy and would make a better PM than Sunak.

It'll be what people experience in their daily lives that will decide the next election.

@Alexandra2001

What if the papers report:

Record numbers of boats crossed the Channel this summer (2024).

The IHT main residence exemption on a joint family home is £350,000 and the average house in the south east is £700,000 and then the Tories abolish it (newspaper campaign in early 2024).

Labour can’t define a woman.

Inflation is down (during 2024).

Mortgage payments drop £500 a month (during 2024).

Unemployment is the lowest ever and link that to coming out of Europe.

What if people buy into this because they feel it is perceived to be relevant to their daily lives? The press are incredible masters of spin. It’s a huge power game. Who is going to be spinning Starmer’s story to the masses?

Britain already is a world leader in offshore wind but wind is variable too much or too little and the turbines can’t operate.

You need other sources that can operate irrespective of conditions. Ultimately you need to reduce demand.

I’d assumed these licenses were more about maintaining our production capacity and making us less dependent imports (especially after the price shocks due to the Russia/Ukraine conflict).

I agree, i think the tory press will not report what is actually happening, so no nhs articles, inflation, channel crossing and interest rate rises on page 8 or not reported... Labours policies/manifesto ignored unless it suits them.

BUT too many people now are struggling to make ends meet, can't get GP appointments or operations or care for their parents, dental treatment... even pot holes.

Also, i think if the TOries are still miles behind, the press wont want to be on the losing side, so may well switch and suck up to Starmer.. like they did with Blair.