1 hour ago, Tony1951 said:

It is only the use of hydrocarbon fuels and chemical feed stocks derived from them, such as ammonia, which brought our species out of bestial levels of poverty, semi starvation and grinding toil. It is hydrocarbon fuels which feed the growing population of the planet.

True but at the cost of serious climate change and most likely an unsustainable over population. Are you so blind that you can only look to the past as the way to a better future?😠

2 hours ago, JoeCrow said:

Does it really matter where the gas comes from? It's all the same price whether gas comes from your own country or from elsewhere, same with the oil. Brent crude isn't cheaper despite currently not coming from a war zone!

The price on the international hydrocarbon markets is directly driven by supply and demand.

The more we extend our supply chain the less secure our supply becomes. Given that we can produce gas ourselves (or could do) it seems foolish not to do so. Can't you see from current issues how vulnerable supply from far off volatile lands is?

Furthermore - there is nothing to prevent an oil and gas producer from entirely controlling the production and sale of its resource. We do not have to sell the production rights and just take a royalty (as now). We could take full control of our resource, pay the oil and gas producing and exploration companies a royalty per barrel or volume, and sell it to our own industry and power generators.

2 hours ago, JoeCrow said:

True but at the cost of serious climate change and most likely an unsustainable over population. Are you so blind that you can only look to the past as the way to a better future?😠

The UK emits 1% of world co2 in total.

We are using gas and oil anyway and must continue to do so, even if we are transitioning from carbon fuels to renewables (when they are available - which is only part of the time). All of the liquefied gas shipped in from the USA or the Middle East has a much higher carbon footprint that North Sea gas. This amounts to a 17% increase in c02 per unit burned because it has been compressed, kept cool, and shipped across the planet which our own gas does not require. So the question is, do we want to burn Liquefied gas at 117% of carbon emissions of locally produced gas, or not.

The hand wringing is performative nonsense - just a theatrical trick. WE MUST burn gas when we have no wind. Even though we have installed capacity of wind generation of 35 Gwatts, the annual mean generation from wind in the last year was only 10.6 G watts. Annual mean demand is 30.7 Gwatts. We must burn gas. We should be using our own resources and shortening and securing our supply chain.

The so called better future you allude to for the UK is likely to be a future of de-industrialised poverty and vulnerability. De-industrialisation has gone hand in hand with lowering gdp per capita. Better paid jobs and valuable export industry have left these shores at an alarming rate. Not only is this destructive of wealth and well-being, it is dangerous in the face of a rampant Russia with huge capability for military production. We are incapable of manufacturing weapons at the rate they can and we know how dangerous they are.

Edited April 12Apr 12 by Tony1951

46 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

The so called better future you allude to for the UK is likely to be a future of de-industrialised poverty and vulnerability. De-industrialisation has gone hand in hand with lowering gdp per capita. Better paid jobs and valuable export industry have left these shores at an alarming rate. Not only is this destructive of wealth and well-being, it is dangerous in the face of a rampant Russia with huge capability for military production. We are incapable of manufacturing weapons at the rate they can and we know how dangerous they are.

I don't/didn't allude to any better future for the UK, I merely pointed out that looking to the past will not bring it about. Regarding the past and the massive de-industrialization of the UK since WW2 is much more about those better paid jobs going to places where they don't cost so much. Having said that I don't believe things were so much better back in the days when Britain's energy supply was completely local i.e. coal, or indeed in Thatchers time when they dumped coal for North Sea oil and gas.

1 hour ago, Tony1951 said:

The price on the international hydrocarbon markets is directly driven by supply and demand.

The more we extend our supply chain the less secure our supply becomes. Given that we can produce gas ourselves (or could do) it seems foolish not to do so. Can't you see from current issues how vulnerable supply from far off volatile lands is?

The remaining reserves in the North Sea tiny and expensive to recover, basically not worth the candle, much better to utilise the land based reserves in the Middle East and Venezuela and it is no surprise to me that Trump is taken steps to install more west friendly governments in those locations.😬

32 minutes ago, JoeCrow said:

I don't/didn't allude to any better future for the UK, I merely pointed out that looking to the past will not bring it about. Regarding the past and the massive de-industrialization of the UK since WW2 is much more about those better paid jobs going to places where they don't cost so much. Having said that I don't believe things were so much better back in the days when Britain's energy supply was completely local i.e. coal, or indeed in Thatchers time when they dumped coal for North Sea oil and gas.

The remaining reserves in the North Sea tiny and expensive to recover, basically not worth the candle, much better to utilise the land based reserves in the Middle East and Venezuela and it is no surprise to me that Trump is taken steps to install more west friendly governments in those locations.😬

The investment in the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields has already been made. Far from not being worth the trouble, Rosebank is expected to produce 300 to 500 million barrels of oil and associated gas, and the Jackdaw field is expected to produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million homes, or 6% of the UK gas production. In fact there are large p[arts of our continental shelf that have not even been explored at all to the west of Great Britain.

39 minutes ago, JoeCrow said:

I don't/didn't allude to any better future for the UK, I merely pointed out that looking to the past will not bring it about. Regarding the past and the massive de-industrialization of the UK since WW2 is much more about those better paid jobs going to places where they don't cost so much. Having said that I don't believe things were so much better back in the days when Britain's energy supply was completely local i.e. coal, or indeed in Thatchers time when they dumped coal for North Sea oil and gas.

One thing is for sure - the countries with the biggest growth and developing industrial production are all countries with cheap and abundant energy. Our energy prices are among the most expensive and for industry we have the most expensive electric power.

As for looking to the past - if you glance back at where I came into this thread just yesterday, you will see that I was complaining of the loss of a massive AI inevestment - lost specifically because the power to run the project is far too expensive and makes no sense to OpenAI. That loss takes with it the 8000 well paid jobs. I'm not looking back at all. I am looking forward.

16 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

The investment in the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields has already been made. Far from not being worth the trouble, Rosebank is expected to produce 300 to 500 million barrels of oil and associated gas, and the Jackdaw field is expected to produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million homes, or 6% of the UK gas production. In fact there are large p[arts of our continental shelf that have not even been explored at all to the west of Great Britain.

Oh dear, you are still not considering the consequences, on a global scale you are right to say the UK is only, these days, a very minor contributor to climate change but the same pressures apply to all the developed countries in the world and if the burning of fossil fuels is not reduced then you won't need the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields as large parts of the UK including London and some of the best farming land will be underwater. I doubt the national grid will survive that so if you are lucky enough to live on the top of a hill you will be getting your energy from a windmill anyway.🫣

Edited April 12Apr 12 by JoeCrow
addition:-

36 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

Rosebank is expected to produce 300 to 500 million barrels of oil and associated gas

I wouldn't mind betting there is more than that in tankers waiting for safe passage through the straights of Hormuz

Solar panels are creating an unexpected effect by forming rainfall clouds and thriving oases in the middle of the desert

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/solar-panels-are-creating-rain-clouds/19854/

Seven countries now generate 100% of their electricity from renewable energy

Scientists say we have reached an ‘irreversible tipping point’ that will see fossil fuels phased out

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html

Edited April 12Apr 12 by lenny

BMW iX5 Hydrogen Gets New Flat Tank System, Range Up to 750 km

BMW's new Hydrogen Flat Storage system uses seven connected high-pressure chambers instead of separate tanks, boosting range while keeping the full X5 cabin intact.

https://www.bmwblog.com/2026/04/08/bmw-ix5-hydrogen-flat-tank-system-750-km-range/

Summer is getting longer, and it’s happening faster than we thought

New research finds summers are expanding 50 per cent faster in many areas than previously reported, with quicker transitions between seasons.

https://news.ubc.ca/2026/04/summer-is-getting-longer-and-its-happening-faster-than-we-thought/

Maine set to become first state with data center ban

The measure, which is expected to get final passage in the next few days, also creates a council to suggest potential guardrails for data centers to ensure they don't lead to higher energy prices

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/maine-data-center-ban.html

15 hours ago, JoeCrow said:

Oh dear, you are still not considering the consequences, on a global scale you are right to say the UK is only, these days, a very minor contributor to climate change but the same pressures apply to all the developed countries in the world and if the burning of fossil fuels is not reduced then you won't need the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields as large parts of the UK including London and some of the best farming land will be underwater. I doubt the national grid will survive that so if you are lucky enough to live on the top of a hill you will be getting your energy from a windmill anyway.🫣

The carbon emission consequences of using our own gas and oil are lower than if we import it. This is particularly true of liquefied imported gas. I already made that clear yesterday - maybe you didn't see the post. Liquefied imported gas has embedded 17% more carbon - the energy used to compress, refrigerate and transport it across the world. Also - we are not decreasing our hydrocarbon consumption by not using the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, we are simply importing it from elsewhere and benefiting foreign economies while our own oil and gas workers are put out of work. That is complete stupidity.

Instead of impoverishing our own people ( we have almost the highest domestic electricity price in the world and certainly the highest industrial electricity price) we should encourage the real carbon hogs (China - 12.7Billion tonnes of co2; USA - 5Bn tonnes of co2; India 2.83 billion tonnes of co2; Russia - 1.9 Bn tonnes of co2) to reduce their output. That would be meaningful rather than a performative farce. The UK emits 0.385 Bn tonnes. The whole idea that by destroying our industry and offshoring our manufacture to dirtier systems, we save the planet is stupid idiocy.

WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

Idiots like Milband think we can lead by example. Delusion. None of the big emitters even care about what we do. We are already a failed laughingstock of a country - failed by generations of criminally negligent politicians so that we are reduced to asking the French to protect our foreign assets because we don't have a ship that can go to where the trouble is.

De-industrialising further will do nothing but make us poorer and weaker still.

15 hours ago, JoeCrow said:

I wouldn't mind betting there is more than that in tankers waiting for safe passage through the straights of Hormuz

Woosh would approve of this nonsense because he doesn't care about facts or reality.

Fact:

20 to 21 million barrels of hydrocarbons transit the straights of Hormuz each day. That is a very great deal less than 300 to 500 million barrels of oil /gas equivalent.

But the Straights of Hormuz are an irrelevant distraction in this discussion of Rosebank and Jackdaw (other than on price). The UK only gets a tiny percentage of its gas and oil from that region. Approximately 12% of our total hydrocarbon consumption comes from the Middle East. Mostly jet fuel and diesel. Most of the production passing by Iran goes to Asia and Africa. We get ours from the North Sea and Norway in the main, with some liquefied gas from the USA.

This is where your policies will take us if we follow the gas is bad plan.

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Tony1951

Which do you want the UK to be?

The choice is real.

Expensive power or cheap power?

Interesting fact.

That cartoon required electricity which emitted between about 5 to 30 grams of co2 to power the compute needed. About 200 watt hours. The exact co2 emission depends on how that electricity was produced.

WE just lost 8000 jobs and a multi billion dollar investment in AI last week when OpenAI decided they could not site a planned AI data centre in Northumberland because electricity here was far too expensive.

That is 8000 people NOT in work, not earning money and not paying taxes.

The price of electricity to American manufacturers is between 6 and 7 pence per kilowatt hour.

In the UK a kilowatt hour of electricity will cost industry between 26 pence and 30 pence.

In China the cost is between 6 and 7 pence per kilowatt hour.

Where is industry going to move to?

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Tony1951

10 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

20 to 21 million barrels of hydrocarbons transit the straights of Hormuz each day. That is a very great deal less than 300 to 500 million barrels of oil /gas equivalent.

You don't look up the numbers very carefully do you?

At best, Rosebank can give 300-350 million barrels of oil equivalents. Mostly oil, some gas, equivalent to 6% of our consumption in 1 year. In other words, useful but not impactful.

The point about Rosebank is their permit is made illegal because they did not follow the law. They will have to re-apply.

What you also need to pay attention to is the impact of tax credits given to the exploitations and would it lower consumers' price. The simple answer is the owners can take the tax credits and sell the oils to who pays the most. It's not like Norway where government owns the majority of shares in the industry.

11 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

Fact:

20 to 21 million barrels of hydrocarbons transit the straights of Hormuz each day. That is a very great deal less than 300 to 500 million barrels of oil /gas equivalent.

Yes but there has not been hardly any transit for the last 6 weeks and the 300 million barrels from the Rosebank field is only less than 15 days worth of normal transit through the Straights of Hormuz, literally a drop in the ocean!😄

Your solutions don't add up, your doom and gloom scenario is exactly where reliance on fossil fuels will get you.

12 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

In the UK a kilowatt hour of electricity will cost industry between 26 pence and 30 pence.

In China the cost is between 6 and 7 pence per kilowatt hour.

Again, you don't look up the numbers before jumping to conclusions.

Electricity price in China is government controlled, sold at below production cost and does not cover the distribution cost (the grid) either while our government uses taxes on energy to raise revenue.

Campaign for change in the law by all means but we need correct numbers for an intelligent discussion.

How it works

1. Government price control (main form of subsidy)
Electricity prices in China are regulated by the state, mainly through the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).

• Retail electricity prices (especially for households) are often kept below the true cost of generation and delivery.

• This effectively acts as a subsidy to consumers.

2. Cross-subsidies

• Industrial and commercial users often pay higher tariffs.

• Households and agriculture pay lower rates, meaning businesses indirectly subsidise residential use.

3. Direct support to generators
China also supports electricity supply through:

• Subsidies for coal power (e.g., ensuring fuel supply stability)

• Strong financial backing for renewables like solar and wind (feed-in tariffs, guaranteed grid access)

• Support for grid infrastructure via state-owned companies like State Grid Corporation of China

The UK’s higher industrial electricity prices:

• Don’t come from renewables

• Don’t come from taxes alone

• They mainly come from gas-based marginal pricing

Factor	China	France	UK
Price level	⭐ Very low (8p-9p/kwh)	⭐ Medium (10p-15p/kwh)	❌ High
Stability	Medium	⭐ High	Medium–low
Industrial policy	Strong	Moderate–strong	Moderate
Gas exposure	Low	Medium	High
Manufacturing appeal	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐

I would also suggest that the high almost identical price for electricity both in the UK and here in Germany is also in part down to the quasi competition that has been foisted on us. I fail to see any value add by companies that try to sell me a "good deal" on electricity that is supplied down the same wires and from the same generating source as everyone else, if they can get a wholesale price why can't I???😡

1 hour ago, JoeCrow said:

I would also suggest that the high almost identical price for electricity both in the UK and here in Germany is also in part down to the quasi competition that has been foisted on us. I fail to see any value add by companies that try to sell me a "good deal" on electricity that is supplied down the same wires and from the same generating source as everyone else, if they can get a wholesale price why can't I???😡

I agree with this point.

The same thing can be said of the ridiculous system by which the UK government licenses blocks of territorial waters to oil and gas producers, who then sell the product on the oil and gas market and charge users whatever ridiculous and volatile price is is current.

It has long been my view that the people should 'own' that hydrocarbon resource and that the exploration and production companies should operate on a royalty system, being granted the costs and reasonable profit margin on their activities. That way both government and people would reap the benefit. As things are - the only people who benefit from our gas and oil production are government (which gets about 80% of the value of the oil and gas produced in royalties) and the oil and gas producers who get the other 20%. We - the mugs - just pay whatever mad price is the highest that can be got on the market. You could say that the public get the benefit of what government takes - except that most of us (and certainly not me) don't see any of that.

The result of the sky high price is that we are all taxed heavily on power consumption - far more than most countries, and that in particular, industry is absolutely hammered by electricity costs. Industrial power here is four times the price of power in the USA and China.

It is also not true that there is a world power price. If electricity can be made of 6 and 7 p a kilowatt hour in the USA, it can be made for that here too.The cost and damage is a self inflicted wound on our economy.

Taking up another point raised above about the marginal pricing scheme for UK electricity generation. It seems to me that this scheme is a confidence trick designed deliberately to pay too much to wind and solar producers to encourage them to install ever more wind and solar power. There is no earthly reason why wind producers who have agreed to produce at about 7p per kilowatt hour should EVER be paid more than their agreed costs, but they are. They are consistently paid FAR more, even on windy days like yesterday. If 70% of the power on the grid is like yesterday coming from wind power with agreements to supply at 7 pence a kilowatt, why should they ever be paid more than that, when the gas turbine people are putting in 10.9% at a much higher price? They are just topping off the supply, but all producers are paid the much more expensive price paid to the most expensive producer. If that is not defrauding the users, I don't know what is. Past governments have agreed to these terms and the contracts need to be immediately re-negotiated and put right.

Of course all governments know what is happening and connive at the con, because it encourages more and more installation of the EXTRAORDINARILY profitable wind power systems.

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Tony1951

2 hours ago, Woosh said:

Again, you don't look up the numbers before jumping to conclusions.

Electricity price in China is government controlled, sold at below production cost and does not cover the distribution cost (the grid) either while our government uses taxes on energy to raise revenue.

Campaign for change in the law by all means but we need correct numbers for an intelligent discussion.

How it works

1. Government price control (main form of subsidy)
Electricity prices in China are regulated by the state, mainly through the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).

• Retail electricity prices (especially for households) are often kept below the true cost of generation and delivery.

• This effectively acts as a subsidy to consumers.

2. Cross-subsidies

• Industrial and commercial users often pay higher tariffs.

• Households and agriculture pay lower rates, meaning businesses indirectly subsidise residential use.

3. Direct support to generators
China also supports electricity supply through:

• Subsidies for coal power (e.g., ensuring fuel supply stability)

• Strong financial backing for renewables like solar and wind (feed-in tariffs, guaranteed grid access)

• Support for grid infrastructure via state-owned companies like State Grid Corporation of China

The ONLY thing that matters is that we are being consistently rendered helpless and poverty stricken by de-industrialisation.

Skilled industrial workers are well paid. Just Eat riders and Amazon delivery people are not. They are so poorly paid that government steps in and pays subsidies in the form of tax credits and top ups to support them.

Don't you see the hopeless spiral we are going into. It reminds me of a black hole sucking up matter in a relentless and permanent disaster.

26 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

Skilled industrial workers are well paid. Just Eat riders and Amazon delivery people are not. They are so poorly paid that government steps in and pays subsidies in the form of tax credits and top ups to support them.

Don't you see the hopeless spiral we are going into.

I agree.

However, I feel a point should be made about the rise of the BRICS countries. They deserve their success because they have been working hard for it while we took the easy way to maintain our living standard through the service economy. With hindsight, a lot of mistakes have been made.

43 minutes ago, Tony1951 said:

It is also not true that there is a world power price. If electricity can be made of 6 and 7 p a kilowatt hour in the USA, it can be made for that here too.

They have a lot more natural resources per inhabitant.

Certainly mistakes have been made. The idea that we can operate comfortable lifestyles in an economy dominated by buying rubbish and paying pennies to people who deliver us food and coffee on a bicycle is risible.

The fact that the USA has abundant oil and gas per inhabitant is not the reason why their power is cheap. It is cheap because they make sure it is not loaded with expensive policy costs - self imposed injury, and that they do not operate a secret subsidy scheme for renewables through the insane marginal pricing scheme.

The UK supplied all of its oil and gas needs for decades, and could still supply more, had we not let government ideologues seize the reins and prevent exploration and exploitation of natural resources that we certainly have such as shale gas and unexplored regions in the North Sea and the continental shelf of the Atlantic near Scotland. We certainly have oil and gas there. Even were it more expensive to exploit, it would be cheaper than what we see right now, and we should nationalise that resource and use it ourselves when we need it. I am not set against using wind power - of course not. We should have it and we should use it, but not with hidden subsidies that make power ridiculously expensive.

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Tony1951

You make out as if our oil and gas deposits will be there, only thing we have to do is drill, dig and frack. It's just not true. Those resources have long been in decline. If there were enough, Rachel Reeves would have twisted arms to get a cut.