Member Info for romaron

"If the BBC wants to reverse the ongoing decline in its audience share, and the decline in its reputation as a reliable news source, it is going to have to start taking climate and energy seriously. Employing correspondents who are fanatical environmentalists, and then giving them a free hand, leads to coverage that is superficial at best and misleading at worst. Paul Homewood’s report shows just how bad things have become."

Andrew Montford - Net Zero Watch

*I disagree. It is still a reliable news source; just not for climate and the environment. Employing environmentalists to report is the same as asking a barber if you need a haircut. I know they try their best to get both sides of arguments but when you've got the likes of Dale Vince and Tessa Khan on speed dial, cheap and always available against serious commentators and experts who refuse to get engaged in spurious propaganda pieces with poorly prepared presenters who can blame them for being unavailable.

If you wondered where all the sub-editors went you can stop worrying. They are safe and sound at the BBC.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66bc6870a7ad654a13b2ac7e/1723623541496/Homewood-BBC-2023.pdf

Paraphrasing Churchill - "The BBC is the worst form of public service broadcaster except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

They have to compete and attract attention from other sources although I tend to agree that their climate coverage needs a revamp but then you could say the same about their coverage of religion.

"“We will ensure the UK's energy supply is secure and we will establish Great British Energy as a new, publicly owned, clean energy company, that is set to cut bills and create thousands of jobs in Britain, funded through revenue from the Energy Profits Levy.” - So the EPL is not about cutting energy bills but funding GB Energy.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/billions-of-pounds-put-at-risk-by-labours-oil-and-gas-plans-4739019

It was a net gain in votes because both major parties went in that direction. It isn't backed by economics, efficiency or even energy security when we will have to import more expensive and dirty O&G for the future. The true costs cannot remain hidden forever. The public don't really care about what they can't see and go along with the herd. That herd no longer includes juststopoil and friends imo. Two Unions, Unite and GMB have broken ranks and attacked Labour on its transition plans. If I was the industry I'd offer incentives to the Unions if they can help change this wicked, unfair tax. In fact the industry has a ready made answer as to why it cannot increase wages and is increasing redundancies. The Unions are at the sharp edge too.

Labour are sending James Murray from the Treasury to meet with oil and gas leaders in Aberdeen. James Murray has all the necessary experience and credentials for the job.

By that I mean experience and credentials to be a Labour politician.

Private education and a PPE from Oxford. Supporter of Jeremy Corbyn but now prefers 'soft left'. Deputy Mayor for Housing to Sadiq Khan and 10 years a Labour Councillor for Islington. He lives in Ealing with his husband.

None of the above inspires me with expecting anything of value to come out of his trip up t'north. What the O&G who are looking to engage in meaningful discussions will make of him is anybody's guess. At best he's a messenger. His background doesn't indicate that he'll understand the concerns of the industry.

I suppose it's in the rules of reporting and what percentages ML can buy but the RNS today of a transaction in own shares of 51,477 (£6.7k) is never going to move the needle. it does though highlight the fact that we're dawdling around and directionless. One buyer and some desultory tiny selling.

My London - by Ed Miliband

Where would you most like to be buried?

"Highgate Cemetery, where both my father and Karl Marx are buried. It’s an extraordinary place, and it’s about 10 minutes’ walk from where we live."

Make of that what you like.

We're already having a fight in Enfield over a 29 storey skyscraper that is half the proposed height of the proposed super-sized windmills. They'll never build windmills so close to urban centres if that's anything to go by. Luckily we've plenty of fields and open land in what used to be called "countryside".

I imagine Ed looks out of the window on his trips to Doncaster and thinks what a waste of farmland. I wonder if he's considered Hampstead Heath for a site - as it's very close to his home?

The US

"We would like to express our strong support for enhancing liquefied natural gas export from the US to Europe, as you are proposing in the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (Title VI)….An expeditious permitting process for essential LNG projects is crucial to ensuring the continued growth and reliability of U.S. LNG exports, which have become increasingly vital to Europe's energy strategy, especially in light of the geopolitical tensions resulting from Russia’s war against Ukraine….The importance of a stable and reliable energy partnership between our regions cannot be overstated. Accelerating the permitting process will not only bolster U.S. energy production but will also provide much-needed certainty and stability for global energy markets. It is imperative to further reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, thereby supporting both regional and global energy security.”

https://www.energy.senate.gov/2024/8/what-they-are-saying-continued-support-for-barrasso-manchin-energy-permitting-reform-act-of-2024

Hi Dumbly - an excellent point. With Labour now looking at clamping down on disinformation many of her quotes when in opposition now look decidedly actionable. Misinformation can be forgiven but for somebody who holds one of the Great Offices of State they should be held to a higher standard. Is she as ignorant as Ed Miliband? His 9X cheaper was actually Disinformation or in common parlance - fake news.

"There needs to be a proper windfall tax on the huge profits the energy giants are making, because while they make huge profits, people are paying huge bills."

Blatantly untrue and it is the smaller independents who suffered. It was a mosquito bite to the Majors. I suppose politicians aren't held to the same level of honesty and punishment that is being dolled out to the rioters who see their opportunities and jobs being lost. I don't agree with the mindless violence but I am unaffected by their actions. Many more were affected by the actions of juststopoil when missing flights, hospital appointments and lost wages.

juststopoil accused the government of genocide. Will anything be done about that?

Having said all that both jso and the rioters have a point about 2 tier justice. Only politicians can lie on line without any fear of repercussions.

-£23.30/ MWh

61.4 % renewables

17.4% Nuclear

12.9% interconnectors

----

7.4% gas

The minus figure will be reported as FREE energy no doubt.

Just looked at this https://grid.iamkate.com/

£1.82/MWh

Gas 12.9%

Wind 47.6%

Solar 6.1%

Nuclear 22.8%

This is ripe for misinformation. I don't require my gas central heating presently.

Https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/08/austrias-last-generation-to-dissolve-over-fossil-ignorance/

The same is happening with juststopoil. They'll soon be gone.

Hi oxygen - I listened to the Harbour webcast. It confirms what you said about them being circumspect about EPL. They swerved all questions in the QA with the response that they're awaiting the budget and what happens to the 'capital allowance'. Linda Cook gives little away but she must be scarred from the spiteful, partisan and ill-informed attacks she received at the Environmental Audit in July 2022.

I suppose there is little to be gained from highly paid O&G executives complaining publicly so it has to be done behind closed doors.

She did say at the end that they have chosen a COO for the first time and the appointment will be announced early next year. That sounds like someone currently employed and it could be involved with a further deal. I doubt it's us but shows that the deal-making never stops.

"All of us can see that the climate is changing, and that man-made emissions are the likely cause."

Well I'm not "all of us". I accept that you have swings in temperature and periods of excess but there are plenty of records supporting the fact that we handle things increasingly well. The concreting over of land and building on flood plains ain't very sensible but 'needs must'. Rich people wanting homes on the coast and then complaining about erosion. The 'cinque ports' should be studied. New Romney was once a major port until getting silted up following the flood of 1287. Wasn't there a desert when Moses was a boy?

*my records from a gardening perspective show that my fig tree and guelder rose blossom and fruit at the same time as 20 years ago. That's longer than juststopoil has been around.

Oxygen - I think you're close. BP and Shell needed the like of us once fields hit a rate of decline that made them uneconomic in terms of scale for the majors. They are now in a position [the majors] whereby the government has to woo and be nice to them otherwise they're off. At a certain level I'm sure an understanding between Shell & BP was reached where they said they wouldn't rock the boat about fossil fuels and were structured so that it made minimal impact on their profitability.

If administration beckons for the remaining O&G producers who will pick up the pieces? The risk to jobs demands a staged retreat but this government prefers a rout. No wonder investors have steered clear of the sector.

Hi Oxygen - re your 12:57

Could it be that Harbour, following the decision to diversify away from the UKCS means they can play the decom market and renewables which have generous subsidies with clever tax advice on exiting from the basin? Meanwhile they grow overseas production and at the right time to list in New York. It makes sense. Negligible profits in UK but profits safer elsewhere.

We meanwhile are trapped by our tax losses/credits and don't have that flexibility. We are serving our time.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - remind me - what was our crime?

We can afford our extra prisons and new hospitals if we just redirected the monies going into renewables/unreliables. This article is more about Daisy Dunne justifying her salary as "Special Correspondent" for Carbon Brief.

Yes, that same Carbon Brief that started off the 9X cheaper big lie.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-could-approve-13-new-oil-and-gas-projects-despite-north-sea-pledge/

We are becoming more like the US where facts come second to fanaticism, sound bites and vested interests. I'm a simple person. What's wrong with going for the proven, cheaper and more reliable forms of energy?

A reminder of the famous quote.

https://climatedebate.co.uk/is-wind-power-9-times-cheaper-than-gas/#:~:text=Onshore%20wind%20is%20more%20than,cheaper%20than%20gas%E2%80%9D%20is%20untrue.

First they came for the cows

And I did not speak out

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/feeding-cows-pills-suppress-burps-emissions/

"At the same time as announcing this new body, Ed Miliband also asked the Electricity System Operator to ‘provide advice on the pathway towards the 2030 ambition, with expert analysis of the location and type of new investment and infrastructure needed to deliver it.’ Although there is much talk in these announcements, and those concerning GBE itself, of the new bodies ‘working together’ with industry, other public organisations and so on, it is difficult to avoid the impression that all these bodies will be operating in closely overlapping areas, potentially treading on each other’s toes (for instance, both GBE and Mission Control are tasked with debottlenecking; both Mission Control and the ESO are expected to advise on pathways to 2030). This could risk creating confusion, rather than clarity, for the private and public bodies which will be expected to deliver the investment needed to meet the 2030 target. The energy sector was already fairly crowded with advisory and regulatory bodies of one sort or another (Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero and so on) and it is not clear that the new bodies all have distinct functions to perform. Just as there seems to be some lack of clarity about the respective roles of GBE and Great British Nuclear, so there is an apparent multiplication of bodies expected to advise on pathways towards the 2030 goal and means to promote it. It is not clear what happens if the various bodies see the priorities differently. Presumably the government will have to referee the process but it may take some time to see how this will work in practice."

I hope this helps those who are a little confused. What can go wrong with Ed refereeing - I hope he uses VAR.

source: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publication-category/energy-transition/

The M post (12:45) post helps understand what happened last week. The first I knew was when Dumbly posted late on the 29th (19:29) about the EPL confirmation dubbed "Policy Paper". It appears to have gone down like a cup of cold sick. It is my opinion that the release was timed to be released when attention was elsewhere. Do we have an actual time the news was released? If they had used the Southport stabbings as "a good day to bury bad news" then that is reprehensible. Have I got my date and timings right?

The journalist is the same person who had to correct an article publicly regarding EnQuest a few months ago. This time the attribution passes all the tests.

I ignored this bit of the article:

"Asked if he thought North Sea oil and gas had a long-term future, Mr Auchincloss would not answer directly but said: “The Government hosted a call late that night [after the announcement]. “I think the thing to take away from that is Labour policy says oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come. They effectively launched a consultation process with the sector [that night] which will unfold over time. “We’ll be engaged deeply with them on that and we want to see meaningful and constructive engagement as we move forward.”

I'm ignoring this bit as Auchincloss represents BP NOT the North Sea. Pure window dressing.

I pay a lot of attention to this:

"Mr Miliband and Ms Reeves had repeatedly pledged that Labour would raise oil and gas taxes, but the sudden and unexpected timing sparked consternation among North Sea operators, forcing Treasury officials to organise an evening ring-round of chief executives in an attempt to reassure them.

EnQuest said the attempt had not worked."

So we had Treasury officials ringing around from where - the pub? They could have been junior clerks. This is an example of the contempt that Labour have for the UK O&G industry. The industry wasn't even given the courtesy of a call from a politician. I think that will sting. Th transition is in severe danger of breaking down and it isn't the fault of the O&G Industry. I hope that the industry abandons trying to appease the crocodile and assumes a hostile and uncooperative stance. They should attack renewables and run a campaign warning of the dangers of closing down the UKCS O&G too fast. I would treat ministers the way they treated me.