Lost In Translation

Some (on the right, in the fossil fuel lobbies, among the climate catastrophe deniers and net zero detractors) are advocating heavily for the UK to increase rates of extraction of oil and gas from our offshore North Sea fields, by honouring two licences currently subject to litigation and by approving new licences.

They claim it will (a) bring down the price of fuel to UK consumers, (b) make us less reliant on imports of oil and gas, (c) provide revenue to the exchequer, (d) create jobs and (e) that as everybody else continues to drill anyway, why shouldn't we, "in the national interest".

Leaving aside that such a move would run contrary to both the legally binding Climate Change Act (2008) and the current government's manifesto, there are several compelling reasons for not doing so, but they mostly get conveniently lost in translation, so let me set the record straight.

this leads...

Even giving the go-ahead for the already approved Rosebank oil and gas field near the Shetland Islands and the Jackdaw gas field near Aberdeen won't actually achieve objectives (a), (b) and (c) for the following reasons:

Rosebank contains very little gas: it is 90% heavy crude oil. UK refineries are not equipped to refine it, and as such, it is not suitable for domestic use. It would be loaded onto tankers and sold by the fuel companies on international markets at global market prices to the highest bidder. Extracting more of it would not change the international cost of oil and gas. It would not heat British homes, fuel British industry, or lower British bills. Activating Rosebank would actually increase the UK's CO2 emissions by some 10% per year!

What is more, the primary financial beneficiaries of proceeding with Rosebank would be its owners, not the exchequer or UK taxpayers. Rosebank is owned jointly by Shell and Equinor (80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Based on a long-term average oil price of $70 per barrel, the field's owners stand to earn £1.5 billion in profit. UK taxpayers, by contrast, would shoulder over 80% of Rosebank's development costs through tax relief. Shell and Equinor effectively pay no tax in the UK because it is offset by the tax relief they receive, and Equinor pays tax in Norway, to that country's benefit.

Jackdaw has gas, probably enough to supply a mere 2% of UK requirements up to 2036. It would be relatively straightforward to connect that platform to the UK pipeline network. However, the gas beneath Jackdaw is CO2 dense and drilling it could produce 35.8m tonnes of carbon over its 10-year lifetime, the equivalent of 90% of Scotland's emissions for 2023. As for new jobs created, the estimate is 15 permanent positions (yes 15). 

Shell owns Jackdaw, so the financial caveats attached to Rosebank largely apply to Jackdaw as well. The fuel company and its shareholders will be the prime beneficiaries and any potential revenue to the UK exchequer will be offset by the tax relief the government affords Shell (which paid zero tax in the UK last tax year).

Those are the facts which have been roundly ignored in the pronouncements and soundbites of Tory and Reform politicians advocating a "drill, baby, drill" policy in recent months.

Actually, the best way to achieve the goals of (a), (b), (c) and (d) is by steadfastly opposing option (e) and by accelerating our endeavours to switch over to renewable energy and achieve net zero as fast as possible. Britain has led the way since 2008. Our best hope is to continue to do so.

The alternative is more of what we have seen this summer.

...to this

“As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.” (King Lear IV:I:37–38)

Here's my latest, a work-in-progress:

Bad Gods And Greedy Fools

If ever the saga of our hellish end-of- times 

gets uncovered by some intrepid voyagers 

from across the sea of stars, as they

disinter our history from the planet's silent, 

cinderous shell, wondering what catastrophe 

befell so mighty a civilised world, will they 

struggle to believe they've translated aright, 

that we brought destruction on ourselves? 

That bad gods and greedy fools conspired

like wanton boys to wreck the very paradise

they enjoyed, the ecosphere that sustained them?

How could such crass stupidity, such lack 

of care, of empathy play out on a rare sphere

once both beautiful and bountiful, now pocked

with burnt out cities and the ashen ghosts

of monstrous fallen data temples dedicated

to Artifice? How could they give nature the slip?

Why did nobody try harder to stop such madness? 

Was it some decadent death wish allowed

That bad gods and greedy fools conspired

like wanton boys to wreck the very paradise

they enjoyed, the ecosphere that sustained them?

Thanks for reading, S ;-)