Following our Supreme Court win last year, the government has been forced to rethink its approach to consenting new oil and gas developments in the North Sea.
Today they issued new guidance for oil and gas companies which means that when seeking consent for new developments, they must now reveal the amount of CO2 that will be released from burning the oil and gas they plan to extract.
We are cautiously optimistic that the guidance provides clear advice that will make it much harder for any new oil and gas projects to get the go-ahead. The government has put paid to the oil and gas industry’s spurious claims, such as that any new project is insignificant compared with global emissions, and that other developers would open up new fields if theirs didn’t go ahead.
While this new guidance is very welcome, it currently is only applicable to offshore oil and gas developments. The onshore environment must not be ignored.
Under the existing regulatory environment civil society groups and local communities continue to face an uphill battle in stopping these developments. For example, the National Planning Policy Framework still unfortunately (and despite its recent review) encourages planning authorities to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments, which is entirely out of step with the overall thrust of the government’s intention to transition away from fossil fuels. The Weald Action Group will be campaigning for the same guidance to be provided to planning authorities who regulate onshore developments and for the planning framework to be updated.
Sarah Finch, the campaigner who brought the case on behalf of the Weald Action Group, said, “We are hopeful that that the guidance published today will make it harder for new oil and gas developments in the North Sea to go ahead. We will work hard to get similar guidance for onshore oil and gas.”
Less oil and gas produced in the UK will mean, on a net basis, more imports of oil and gas. Consumption not production is the issue, and whatever the level of UK production there will be no effect on consumption in the UK.
Less production in the UK will mean lost jobs and a negative for the economy and balance of payments, energy/national security and, longer-term, tax income for the UK. Plus, rather ironically, it will mean more carbon emissions. This will be bad for the UK and worse for the planet. Why promote an action of such national and international self-harm?
To import oil and gas into the UK will there be a requirement for a certificate either confirming Scope 3 emissions were considered at the point of extraction or that the burning of these imported hydrocarbons will be considered as part of the import process? If not, is the whole thing not an enormous farce?
Current global oil consumption is around 104 million barrels of oil per day. OPEC project that by 2050 it will INCREASE by some 19% to 123 million barrels per day. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/OPEC-Says-Global-Oil-Consumption-Will-Hit-123-Million-bpd-by-2050.html
Most consumers care little about from where the hydrocarbons they consume come out of the ground. It is just something people don’t think about. Whether this, both the increasing consumption levels and consumer’s indifference, is “right” or “wrong” is a moot point. It is just how things are and will be.
What is relevant is that limiting the UK’s production of approximately licenced and economically recoverable oil and gas will not change one iota the level of global consumption, but it will harm the UK’s economy and security, and increase the emissions associated with the consumption. Why would anyone with the UK’s interests at heart want to limit the UK’s licenced oil and gas production? The assumption has to be that people taking such a position are either against the interests of the UK and/or have an agenda they are not being transparent about.
… appropriately licensed