Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Bald_eagle totally agree but religious leaders care more about their dogma than the environment. God will take care.
The Chinese solution was a disaster and there is a major gender imbalance. So i don't really think it worked at all. Most of Europe's replenishment rate is less than needed for a capitalist system to function. That's why a move away from a capitalist's system is needed.
"What we really need is a smaller global population then there will be a reduction in goods and energy required."
==============================================================
Orac, I haven't really heard 'environmentalists' calling for a reduction in world population. I don't expect that would be popular....even more of a hard sell than reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
How would we do it?! The Chinese 'solution' sort of worked but not a vote winner I suspect!!
Slightly ironically the birth rate in UK by 'indigenous' population is too low to support a vibrant economy, if you believe the economists. Perhaps the answer will be AI, where less people will be required & we will all have more 'quality' time. But I suspect it will just mean the super rich getting even richer.
Kenj: Thanks, but you can keep Greta!
Greta isn't talking to you or us, which is one good reason to not ignore her.
What we really need is a smaller global population then there will be a reduction in goods and energy required. Covid was making a good job of that until the vaccines turned up, but until the global population is reduced by a few billion the environmental impact will continue. Now where's Thanos and his Infinity Stones when you want them?...lol!
Have you tried buying goods of a higher quality ?
There aren't any because there isn't a big enough market for it, in the UK we have a cheapest option culture and it's even affected the producers of quality goods as they cut corners to try and compete or simply go out of business.
"Why the world is in thrall to a teenage girl is beyond me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because she makes more sense than a lot of so called 'grown ups'!!....unfortunately
"...even if we do, removing our 1% of the worlds emissions will make barely any difference"
=========================================================================
Ken, I'm not sure if your 1% figure tells the full story. We import so much 'stuff' from China that our consumption is fuelling their use of fossil fuels. We have exported our manufacturing to China & India who burn dirty coal to make the 'stuff' we use. So I doubt the 1% includes the carbon released in making the 'stuff' we buy. Perhaps if we all bought less 'stuff' but of a higher quality that lasted longer!!
It is so easy to find an excuse to do nothing...even making small changes to our buying habits can change the world. Perhaps we should start to 'buy British' again....if we actually make anything here now?!
Thanks, but you can keep Greta!
Why the world is in thrall to a teenage girl is beyond me.
It seems you are right about Drax...it may not be a solution to climate change:
"Drax claims that burning wood pellets is “carbon neutral” because the emissions released by wood pellet combustion in a power plant are offset by the emissions that trees absorb while they grow. The claim is disputed by many environmental scientists and campaigners."
So it appears you may have Greta on your side!!
When people use terms like United Kingdom and Great Britain you can never be sure if this includes Northern Ireland, which is why I said mainland UK. Sorry if it confused you.
As for Net Zero by 2050, an ambitious plan that I doubt we can reach without bending the figures, and even if we do, removing our 1% of the worlds emissions will make barely any difference. Once China and India start reducing, then we may be getting there.
A prime example of bending the figures is the Drax power station. This switched from burning coal to burning wood pellets a few years back to get in on the Green bandwagon. The wood pellets it now burns are rated as carbon neutral as the wood can be regrown, consequently they report zero emissions, when in truth the emissions are now higher. And that is without counting the pollution caused by the diesel engines of the ships transporting the pellets from America to the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/drax-greenwashing-cop26-wood-emissions-b1956072.html
"Wind is definitely NOT the answer, it will always be peripheral imo."
================================================================
Not according to the 'experts':
"In May 2021, the International Energy Agency published Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. The roadmap says that 90% of electricity generation globally will come from renewable sources in 2050, with solar and wind being responsible for 70%."
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/windenergyintheuk/june2021#future-of-wind-energy]
Presumably, that will require infrastructure to build, maintain & replace turbines on a rolling basis (You cannot build, walk away & forget about them). Most people will also want these wind farms to be off-shore and Shell has the skills for such projects.
PS Most of Scotland is on mainland UK btw....or have they sneakily voted for independence?!
"Wind power has never provided a substantial or reliable part of the UK's electricity supply."
============================================================================
Ken, I'm not sure what you call substantial but 24% isn't insignificant...and presumably that figure is set to grow.
"Wind energy generation accounted for 24% of total electricity generation (including renewables and non-renewables) in 2020; with offshore wind accounting for 13% and onshore wind accounting for 11%"
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/windenergyintheuk/june2021]
I have not seen the data in terms of reliability for wind power. Presumably solar is also impacted by cloud cover & obviously at night, so energy storage is an important technology, with EV's providing a storage option in the future.
I like the idea of the small nuclear plants being developped. We also import hydro power from Norway via subsea cable...so presumably Scotland has potential for Hydro. Another option is tidal power.
All technologies that Shell could use its expertise & resources to engage in.
"a Shell/Scottish Power joint venture called ScotWind, a "seabed leasing scheme" to support "large-scale floating offshore windfarms in our deep waters". It doesn't yet have approval - presumably from government and regulators - but internal comms say it "could bring enough clean energy to power the equivalent of every home in Scotland." This is the future, folks."
ShellEmployee,
Wind power has never provided a substantial or reliable part of the UK's electricity supply. Scotland may well be a windy area, but it is not as simple as that. When there is no wind - there is no electricity, and when the wind blows very strongly - there is also no electricity, as the turbines are shut down to prevent them being damaged.
Then there is the issues of storage as the optimal winds may be overnight when there is little demand, and a backup source for when the winds don't blow at all. All of our Nuclear power stations are coming to their end of life, so don't count on them for much longer. Coal power stations have already been shut down, and gas is scheduled to go the same way.
Britain is not self sufficient and relies on other countries to supply us with power. What will happen if Russia turns off the gas supply, or France cuts off the electricity it supplies to us?
We will be left with two unreliable sources - wind and solar.
Even if wind could power every home in Scotland, this is way short of powering mainland UK. Only 5.4 million people live in Scotland, about 8% of the UK total.
Wind is definitely NOT the answer, it will always be peripheral imo.
Nicola Sturgeon's bid for Scottish independence rests heavily on her pursuit of any popular agenda that is handy, so pursuit of a Green agenda fits well with this. In terms of perspective, Scotland has a GDP of around $205 billion & Shell has a capitalisation of around $174 billion. Many would see it as a good idea to keep companies like Shell happy and committed to exploiting fossil fuels in Scotland, which remains a very small economy in World terms. If you want to survive and thrive in a capitalist world, leaders need to accept and even embrace world-stage capitalist companies.
This research from Strathclyde & Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce based on 2018 is a bit dated now, but Page 5 is worth a look on the Shell Upstream contribution to the Scottish economy:
https://www.shell.co.uk/about-us/what-we-do/_jcr_content/par/relatedtopics.stream/1572983959453/ee4b03a4d64313679a0cd81367b479b4f1fdc698580097881fa9597a5b9f62c4/shell-eia-report-02-oct-2019-final.pdf
There will be significant changes in the following World Economic Forum comparisons from 2016, of the world's biggest corporations compared to the economy of countries. Shell was the 5th biggest corporation in the World at the time, ranking it as the World's 18th largest economy.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/corporations-not-countries-dominate-the-list-of-the-world-s-biggest-economic-entities/
BvB is absolutely right in starting to flex Shell's muscles. If Scotland wants a stagnant economy focused on whisky, timber, tourism & Silicon Glen, then it is going in the right direction. Otherwise it desperately needs a change of political direction, or an injection of common-sense, rather than parroting any populist cause that comes along, even to the detriment of the economy.
From the SNP white paper of 2013.
"An independent Scotland can invest our oil wealth for future generations. By value there is estimated to be as much North Sea oil still to come as has already been extracted. Norway has a savings fund worth more than £470 billion"
Climate change was just as much an issue in 2013 as it is today so I'm not buying the climate emergency argument.
For my money it is just another strategy to gather YES votes.
A pretty shameful strategy if that is the case.
Smart move by Shell.
The Dutch government failed to support them so they move HQ to the UK.
The Scottish government demonise them, the UK government remains silent so they pull out of Cambo.
The mood music from Shell is superb, support us or we will go elsewhere. The world needs oil and gas and we are very very good at extracting it safely.
The SNP will happily see oil imported from more polluting sources, says it all about them in my opinion
Aberdeen could well become the centre for a renewable energy industry in the North sea (wave & wind)....perhaps Shell has seen the writing on the wall. Why invest in a project that will take 25 years to pay back IF the demand for oil in the future is forecast to decline?
Coincidentally, or not, there are ads in Scottish newspapers today for a Shell/Scottish Power joint venture called ScotWind, a "seabed leasing scheme" to support "large-scale floating offshore windfarms in our deep waters". It doesn't yet have approval - presumably from government and regulators - but internal comms say it "could bring enough clean energy to power the equivalent of every home in Scotland." This is the future, folks.
Actually it's not a decision for the Scottish Government...the yes/no is down to the UK Government. Sturgeon is turning it in to a political issue though and because she is so in bed with the Greens (needs their support for independence/Indyref2 majority) she's had to get off the fence and say she doesn't support Cambo. She's very Central Belt focussed and doesn't really care about Aberdeen anyway in my view. Anyway, I guess Shell thought it was just going to drag on and impact the economics. Cambo still hasn't gone away...I believe Siccar point are 70% (Shell 30%), so Siccar Point will be looking for another partner. Whether being out of Cambo is good or not for Shell I've no idea. If they've done the sums and they have better places to spend the money, then that's great. I would imaging reputationally getting involved in Cambo wouldn't do them any favours. Personally I hope Cambo still goes ahead, with all the caveats around it being an electrified platform and all that. So, coming back to what you said Sharefall " SNP made it too risky"...I guess so, but only because Sturgeon has found something else to fight with Boris about.
The SNP government made the project too risky. Why get embroiled in politics. Scottish jobs are not Shells concern. Should be the SNPs concern but they have decided to kick oil and gas so it's now up to the Scottish electorate to decide. Atb. Good decision in my view from shell.