Beelbeebub

From a carbon point of view leaving it in the ground is good - obviously that cuts no ice with the "climate change is a myth" lobby, but it is a consideration for some. More importantly, leaving it in the ground means it is availible for use later for important stuff (like pharmaceuticals, chemicals etc). And I would say we need to stop relying on oil/gas ASAP as it doesn't start to run out "decades ahead", it's running out now. Our production is set to fall by 50% by 2035 *under extremely optimistic oil industry projections* (all the colours) Under more sober projections we drop by 50% in about 5 years and will be at about 25% by 2035. This is the bit in the old movies where the pilot taps the fuel gauge and it drops suddenly to empty.

What that graph doesn't capture is the price of the oil extracted and the rate of extraction. The amount of oil you can extract *economically* changes with the price of oil. As oil prices rise, less attractive sources become viable. Canada has one of the world's largest reserves, but as tar sands which are very costly to extract. The clst per barrel is somewhere north of $60 a barrel, whilst Saudi Arabia is below $10. So if the world price is $100 Canada has huge reserves If it's below $50 it has very little. The UK has already picked the low hanging fruit. The remaining reserves are in more costly places to extract. I have looked and I cannot find a single reputable source who says that the UK can achive energy security through fossil fuels. Can anyone find one? (politicians don't count)

World oil production gas never been higher. But uk oil (and gas) peaked around 2000 at about 4x today's rate Note the other big Nsea producer Norway, is also declining albeit slower This is from the industry body last year. UK authorities are significantly underestimating the country's still-recoverable oil and gas reserves due to policies on tax and the environment that mitigate against maximizing resource recovery, industry group Offshore Energies UK said June 23. The group based the assertion on an independent report from consultancy Westwood Global Energy Group, which found remaining recoverable oil and gas reserves could be up to 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent, compared with a government estimate of 3.75 billion boe published in February 2025. Note they are pushing the maximum remaining ('recoverable') as 7.5billion boe. Other sources put the maximum at 6bn. This includes stuff we know about and stuff we think we might find. As previously noted the UK uses around 1.4million barrels a day. So 7.5bn divided by 1.4 million is near enough 15 years *absolute maximum* There are cars being bought today that would burn the last drop of British oil in that scenario. And, again, that is the absolute maximum. To quote from the same report There is no escaping the fact that the UK North Sea is a mature basin which is in production decline. While the decline ultimately cannot be prevented, there is still a substantial prize available to companies and the government, if the investment environment allows it. Here's an accompanying illustration. Note the "7.5bn" figure is 'no constraints' and half of that is made up of discoveries and prospects - basically "maybe we come up with a way to get even more oil than we thought" and "maybe we find some more oil" If we take the high case, which still has a lot of finger crossing, it's just over 4bn which is less than 10years. So,whilst there may be more oil and gas about, there isn't going to be much we can get ourselves. We'll have to get it from the big oil producers who are.... 1. USA 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Russia 4. Canada 5. Iran How many countries in that list can we call friendly? Again, the idea that the UK can be energy independent by extracting more oil whilst carrying on as we are (oil based road transport, gas based heating and electricity generation) is a fantasy. We need to reduce our demand and increace our home grown energy - nuclear and renewables. https://www.westwoodenergy.com/news/westwood-insight/westwood-insight-ukcs-geological-potential-remains-but-sentiment-shift-is-needed

Indeed, I wish that too. Yes, with the caveat that, as a precious resourcr, we shouldn't be going to the trouble of getting it out of the ground just to burn it to go a few miles down the road. Rather irrelevant, except to say it's odd how often views on the rigidity of gender go with views against "Net zero" given there should be zero correlation. But on China, they are indeed very hard nosed and yet these ultra pragmatists, in moved by any notions of "wokeness" are building out wind and solar at a frankly astonishing rate. They are electrifying industry at speed - nearly 1/4 of heavy trucks (not cars, not vans but freight trucks) sold in chain last year we electric. Remember this I'd supposed to be the hard to electrifying sector in a country not exactly known for being compact.

OK this is from the website of Ithaca energy, the developers of rosebank. For context, the UK oil consumption at the end of 2025 was around 1.4million barrels a day amd Aberdeen City has a population of around 200k. https://www.ithacaenergy.com/assets/rosebank The Rosebank field has recoverable resources estimated at around 300 million barrels of oil from phase 1 and 2, with Phase 1 targeting an estimated 245 million barrels of oil. The field will be developed with subsea wells tied back to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO), with first production expected in 2026-2027. The Rosebank field will produce in excess of 21 MMSCF of natural gas every day, the equivalent to the daily use of Aberdeen City.

I am using actual projections by industry experts, for both the industry and government and they say that "energy security via fossil fuels" is a fantasy for the UK. So, if we wish to insulate ourselves (ha!) against future shocks from being dependent on a substance we have to import the we must reduce our fossil fuel demand. My question to those that oppose "Net zero" policies such as electrification of road transport can d heating, increace on renewable generation capacity etc is "how do you propose the UK improves it's energy security situation?" And the answer "drill for more gas" - isn't a valid answer because it won't achieve that goal.

Again - this is exactly the point of my orginal post. Using figures from the oil and gas industry itself, I did a quick calculation and if we were to magically snap our fingers and be able to extract all the gas the most optimistic oil industry projections estimate is availible - we could maintain our current rate of production for another 15 years and then it woikd all be gone. But that rate is only 50% of our current demand. If we extracted (again magically) at a rate that made us self sufficient for gas, we could do that until around 2033 and then be totally out. This is the core of my argument, any gas plant generating today (and I do think we shoukd squeeze as much use out of already paid for assets as we can) and any you build will be almost wholly dependent on imported gas within the decade. (oil is in basically the same situation)

mm per kw?😁

mW per kM

Regarding the cost of pylons vs underground. The 4.5x figure is from this study by the IET & Mott Macdonald. https://www.theiet.org/media/axwkktkb/100110238_001-rev-j-electricity-transmission-costs-and-characteristics_final-full.pdf It's extremely comprehensive but the TLDR is Pylons are £1-1.5k per Mw/km lifetime cost (so including capital, maintenance, lifetime etc) depending on the distamce and capacity. Underground is £4.5-6.5k per Mw/km, again depending on distance and capacity. So at best 3x at worst 6.5x - 4.5x being a nice central estimate. Offshore cable is even more expensive at £9k per Mw/km and up. It's worth noting an older 2010's) consultation reply by the CPRE put the cost differential, based on case studies in Europe (Denmark IIRC) at 3.5x and they had every incentive to pick the lowest figure possible as thry were arguing for more underground cable. Unless someone can come up with a better study (not handwaving or "well it should be simple to....") we can take it as fact that underground transmission is about 4x the cost of overhead. So, there is a compelling cost argument to go with pylons. Obviously the people who see them would prefer underground,but we must be aware of the strategy of those who oppose something to insist that a more costly approach be taken, then point to the high cost as a reason not to do the thing. IIRC national grid has a £35bn plan over the next 5 years to upgrade the grid Note that the vast majority of new lines are offshore (so more costly) which was no doubt done to reduce the impact of the lines. There is also a lot of upgrading existing lines with new conductors. (also this is the transmission network, the local distribution network has it's own set of upgrades)

Good bit of AI generated slop there.😁 Ironically it's the sort of crap that we should be looking to stop as it probably took a good couple of kwh to generate.

I mean, yes.... 😁 I'm not saying that climate change isn't a good reason to: - improve insulation - electrifying heating and transport - increace renewable generation etc Just that it isn't the only reason. If climate change didn't exist (as some people argue) then it would still be sensible to do the above purely from the perspective of reducing the vulnerability of our economy to external shocks. And I agree that we have sleepwalked into this situation. We should have been taking action earlier and we should be doing more now. But there are multiple groups (ironically both fossil fuel and some misguided and overzelous "greens") who are dragging us back. This thread is an attempt to answer the "Net zero is threatening our energy security - we must drill more for energy independence!" lobby by pointing out that is a fantasy and the only beneficiaries of slowong net zero are the fossil fuel companies and foreign powers who would like to see the UK even more exposed to outside shocks.

This is exactly the point of my orginal post. We do not have "... mountains of gas we have in the North Sea and under our feet in shale formations..." For shale, our geology is different from thr US (who do have quite a bit) and the gas has already leaked out millions of years ago. For the north Sea - it is tapped out. I did a quick calculation and if we were to magically snap our fingers and be able to extract all the gas the most optimistic oil industry projection estimate is availible extract at a rate that satisfied our current rate for another 15 years. But that rate is only 50% of our current demand. If we extracted (again magically) at a rate that made us self sufficient for gas, we could do that until around 2033 and then be totally out. This is the core of my argument, any gas plant generating today (and I do think we shoukd squeeze as much use out of already paid for assets as we can) and any you build will be almost wholly dependent on imported gas within the decade. If a significant portion of put generation relies on this imported gas we are extremely vulnerable to supply shocks beyond our control. On the other hand of we get more of our energy for heating, transport and elecreicty from renewables *which are.cost competitive with well utilised CCGT* then we are less vulnerable to these shocks.

Absolutely, for projects commissioning in 2030 the price per. Mwh for solar and onshore wind is basically £60, offshore is about £100 Gas is at best (93% utilisation) a match for offshore wind. If the utilisation falls it gets more expensive (I guess because of amortisation of the same construction cost over fewer mwh) One thing to note is that in this report the carbon price looks pretty hefty (pale blue bar) somewhere around £30, visually a little bit (say 80%) of the gas price* If you remove that then well utilised gas is a match for solar and onshore wind. *I'm not sure how that chimes with figures I saw that had carbon price of around 30% of the gas price, so I have used the most favourable to gas assumption. And the sensitivity of gas to price rises. This shows the response to higher and lower gas prices - note including the carbon price discussed above. It loos like a +/- of about £25 of on the overall cost, which if we put back into our eaelier graphs means ccgt might be cheaper than solar/wind *if* gas prices were to end up being lower than expected *and* we removed carbon costs.

My point is "chasing net zero" isnt (in the main)" to our detriment. The whole crux of the anti net zero argument is that it somehow is worse than the alternative, that is carrying on burning FF as our main energy source and not moving to a more advanced technological system. If we stay"as is" or worse yet go backwards we will be shooting ourselves on the foot whilst China and the developing works eat our lunch. China already has a massive lead on us. PV is the cheapest electricity source available, especially towards the equator. African countries have worked this out and are jumping straight to electrification. We are going to have to face economies with lower energy costs than us because they are either in renewables or have vast quantities of their own fossil fuels (or ones from countries they invaded) The countries at the bottom of the heap will be the idiots who have set their economy to rely highly on imported energy