sgt_woulds

Exactly. We'll never have a Norway model or a National Wealth Fund as the capitalist mindset is too deeply ingrained in British politics, even amongst allegedly socialist parties. Paying the bills today, is far more important to politicians than squirreling away a fund for the future prosperity of the nation. Just wait until a certain 'Ltd company' oversees UK politics - money and oil will flow, but not towards any sovereign fund. Any thoughts of ringfencing this for the carbon win - let alone any percieved taxpayer benefit - is just pie in the sky.

Actually 5m, but that sounds less dramatic! He was a character and no doubt, I gained a lot of respect for him in the short time that I knew him, despite some of his rather forthright views. He had his grumpy moments and could be quite blunt if he thought you were playing silly buggers, but gave respect to people who 'gave it a go,like'. Unfortunately I dropped out of Uni with money issues (actually, Bolton Institute, which sounds like a prison - and was in many ways) and didn't see him again. After that had his TV series, which was a real treat.

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more The North Sea is not just about the North Sea The weird and wonderful world of gas, in all its different flavours. And what the strange chemistry of methane has to do with one of the most controversial issues facing the new UK government Aug 18 You will know, if you’ve read Material World, that there are many different flavours of oil: sweet and sour, heavy and light, gloopy Canadian tar sands and light, clear fracked crude. You will also know, if you’ve read much of my subsequent stuff here, that such things actually turn out to have outsize, sometimes geopolitical significance. But did you know that something similar also goes for natural gas? When it first comes out of the ground, natural gas can also be sweet or sour, depending on its sulphur content. It can be wet or dry, depending on how many other liquids have come up in the pipes alongside the gas. Natural gas from Algeria is decidedly different (richer and heavier) than the stuff that comes from Trinidad as a consequence of the variety of organic material laid down millions of years ago and the conditions under the ground since then. I learnt this a month or so ago, touring round the Isle of Grain LNG terminal, while filming a documentary for Sky News. The film itself (which I’d love you to watch if you have a moment) is really about something else, about the fate of the North Sea and the question, significant here and, I think, actually of some international import, of whether Britain should be doing more drilling in future. But as is always the way when you’re filming these things and trying to compress it all into a finished film (even a mammoth 30 minute film - mammoth, at least, by Sky News standards), some of the interesting, chewy, nerdy stuff ends up on the cutting room floor. So it was with the various different flavours of natural gas. But such things are actually quite consequential. Consider the gas in Groningen, the first great gas field of Northern Europe in the Netherlands. Groningen gas naturally contains an unusually low methane content and quite a lot of nitrogen. The upshot is that most Dutch appliances - boilers and gas cookers - are designed to work with this low-calorific, gas. However, the Groningen field was recently closed. Since gas from elsewhere has a far higher methane content, the Dutch network operators have had to build vast nitrogen production facilities to blend it into the imported stuff and make it “taste” a little more like Groningen gas. This is quite an expensive operation, since producing nitrogen is very energy-intensive. But given the alternative is to ask the country to buy new boilers, it was considered the least bad solution to an awkward problem of what economists would call “path dependency”. Something similar goes for the UK, where the particular flavour of the gas in the southern North Sea - the gas that really started Britain’s era as a hydrocarbon producer - happens to be pretty lean and dry. When the powers-that-be began to lay down Britain’s national gas grid in the 1960s and ‘70s, they did so with that flavour of gas in mind. Even today, the UK gas network (or rather, the boilers and cookers plugged into it) is designed for a very particular flavour of gas, with a very particular calorific rating. If one of the LNG tankers coming into Isle of Grain to unload gas from Algeria were to send that gas straight into the grid, it would raise the risk of something bad happening: older cookers leaking carbon monoxide, sooting up, and generally not working properly. And so in Britain this foreign gas also has to be treated to bring it into line with British standards. Surprising as it might sound, this is the single most energy-intensive process at the Isle of Grain terminal. Given LNG is already considerably more carbon intensive than the sort of gas you pipe directly from a gas field into your system, this sort of thing matters. It matters all the more today, and will matter still more in the coming decades, since one of the consequences of the rapid decline of North Sea oil and gas production is that Britain is coming to depend on LNG imports even more than in the past. To put it another way, if the only thing you cared about was carbon emissions, you could make a strong case that the green thing to do is to try to squeeze as much gas out of the North Sea as possible. This will sound counter-intuitive for many people, but it is the logical consequence of the energy transition. Even in the best-case scenario, it will take decades to reduce Britain’s dependence on gas down to a level consistent with net zero carbon emissions. As Material World readers know, there are some fossil fuel processes that can be relatively easily decarbonised (electric cars are a genuinely decent, by many yardsticks superior, substitute for petrol ones, for instance). But when it comes to other things: the production of fertiliser for instance, or the grid-scale intermittency support we need for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, the greener alternatives aren’t quite there yet. So while the amount of gas Britain is consuming is going down, and will continue to go down as more people buy heat pumps and more renewable power becomes available, we still need rather a lot of it. And so the question of where that gas will come from is rather important. Especially since, well, as you already know, not all gas is alike. And since Europe has now committed to importing less gas from Russia, that means more gas shipped in in the form of LNG from elsewhere. And since LNG is far more carbon intensive (even before you get to the extra steps to convert and blend that gas into a form palatable for the UK grid), that means more pollutive not to mention more expensive gas. All of which raises two questions (well, actually plenty more than that but let’s stick to the two biggest ones): first, is there really much more gas left in the British half of the North Sea and, second, what does this all do to Britain’s net zero commitments? Let’s take the second question first, since this gets to the knotty, uncomfortable reality. If you presume that the world is really committed to net zero and that carbon emissions are going to fall everywhere in the coming years, consistent with a glidepath to 1.5 or 2 degrees of extra global warming, then you could make the strong case that more North Sea gas production will be better for the environment than gas from elsewhere. Why? Because more domestic gas production in the UK means we have to ship in less LNG from elsewhere and since LNG takes a staggering amount of energy to liquefy and ship (you need to reduce the temperature of the gas to -162 degrees celsius - this is challenging physics), it is surely more efficient to produce the gas domestically and just ship it through the existing infrastructure. But while this would mean lower global emissions it would nonetheless mean more of those carbon emissions happening in the UK than elsewhere. From the perspective of carbon emissions, this ought to be entirely irrelevant, after all the atmosphere couldn’t care less which country is pumping more CO2 into it than the other. However, politicians (and the various climate frameworks they’ve signed up to) fixate instead on domestic carbon emissions. So, yes, by this yardstick, more North Sea drilling would be bad for the UK’s domestic emissions and humiliating for the politicians who promised to reduce it at a particular speed. Photo: Patrick Hutton However, more germane and I think a more serious objection to more North Sea drilling comes back to something else, something a little less about physics and thermodynamics and a bit more about the gloopy world of geopolitics. If you believe that Britain has a leadership role in global climate politics - and given this country has pushed towards net zero faster than any other developed nation that seems like a fair notion - then actually the decision over the North Sea is of outsize importance. It is, you might say, not just about the North Sea. If many other nations see that the country that led the push towards net zero is now committing to a different path, might they follow suit? In other words, might the very act of promising more North Sea drilling send a signal that changes the global trajectory of carbon emissions? If so, that completely topples the logic I’ve laid out above. It would mean more domestic gas production in the UK actually raises global carbon emissions rather than cutting them. So, this isn’t exactly simple. So how about the other issue, the question of whether Britain actually has enough gas to exploit in the first place? The conventional wisdom, as you will know, is that the North Sea is a “mature”, “declining” basin, which is hard to disagree with. The question is whether this means, as many assume, that its path of decline is somehow set in stone. And it so happens we have a rather helpful natural experiment right across the international maritime border in the form of Norway. One of the people we spoke to in the course of making our film was Wood Mackenzie, the leading oil and gas consultancy who arguably know more about the prospects for the North Sea than anyone else. And one of the charts they showed me showed the starkly diverging paths between UK and Norwegian oil and gas production. While UK North Sea output has declined rapidly since the peak in 1999, in Norway output peaked in 2004 and then, critically, stayed relatively high. The lines on that Wood Mac chart diverged. Anyway, one of the great things about AI is that it enables you to make pretty good websites pretty easily, so in the following weeks I used Claude to make a site pulling the publicly available data on oil and gas production in the various UK and Norwegian North Sea fields, and the end result was a rather helpful website. You can find it here. I’d encourage you to look at the numbers yourself (and do let me know any thoughts that occur in the comments) but one striking thing I found is that for all that we are often told that the UK section of the North Sea is simply more “mature” than Norway’s, implying that we have “withdrawn” our share of oil and gas earlier, actually when you tot up the total cumulative output of each side of the basin (see the chart above, right), it turns out Norwegian output has now overtaken the UK. In other words, this isn’t just about maturity, it’s about something else. Either the UK’s side of the North Sea simply has less oil and gas available, or this comes down to politics and economics, down to the differences in the way Norway runs its side versus Britain. I’m not sure there is yet a definitive answer to this question, but it seems like a reasonable one to ask. Would the UK, with a regime similar to Norway, be able to produce as much oil and gas as Norway? These are questions that most politicians have sought not to ponder in the past decade or so. But they are relevant all over again. And they are relevant not just for the UK, but because many people see the North Sea as a sort of test case for the future of the industry - not to mention for global climate policy. Anyway, do watch the film we made, which has far more detail on all of this, Do check out the maps and charts and be assured, this is an issue we’ll come back to again soon. A reminder that if you pre-order my forthcoming new book Trade World between now and Sept 2 and email me at [email protected] attaching a proof of purchase, I will send you an exclusive essay containing bonus material that didn’t make it into the final edition of the book. Material World is a free newsletter, mostly about topics relevant to my recent book, of the same title, and my next book, Trade World. If you enjoyed this post, please do share it with friends. And if the above whets your appetite, please do order a copy of Material World or, even better, pre-order Trade World. And let me know what you think! Buy Trade World © 2026 Ed Conway 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

It was due to the exploitation of the British Labour force and ideoligy of the Neo-Liberal government mindset that hated the idea of a nationlised industry that they couldn't divert money from. They didn't consider national security in their energy policy, other than stockpiling coal reserves so they had breathing room to crush the 'rable rousing unions'. Then they sold off another national asset (North Sea Oil and Gas) to be exploited by private companies and used the 'environment' as an excuse. I'm sure others here can provide their own more nuanced version of events... 🙂

When I was a lad at Uni I met a Mr Dibner at my local pub - he used to live not far from my digs. At that time I'd not heard of him - and he wasn't the sort to point out his fame. After getting on well a few times, he offered to take me on one of his jobs - a quick inspection of a local chimney... just a small one. Lets just say it didn't go well for either of us. I was OK going up, but it took him nearly 3 hours to get me back down. All was well until we got to the bit where you had to go around the Corbeling near the top. The memory of clinging upside down off an ancient wooden ladder miles in the air is something that still gives me nightmares. It wasn't the height that frightened me, it was gravity and the woodworm holes. And the ground - the ground always wins! After that experience, jumping off a building with two decent ropes attached was a doddle... Even HSBC tower where you had to tie a bloody great knot in the end as the ropes as they ended 580 odd feet above the ground and it would be too easy to absentmindedly abseil of the end! I do get vertigo on tube escalators though...

Not exactly. We used a fall resist system, not fall arrest (drops). Think of it as a temporary mansafe system using ropes and movable frames. I also used to do building repairs whilst 'hanging' which was fun. I was dangling 80 feet up when the planes started crashing into the World Trade Centre - we'd noticed lot's of military aircraft activity (formations of RAF AWACS!) but didn't find out what the fuss was about antil we got off the ropes. The week before I'd been on the HSBC tower, which later gave me pause... I did fall through a roof once, but that was caused by scaffolders moving our markers and walkways around the skylight panels (white painted corrugated plastic on our white primed asbestos roof) The barstools needed a scaffold boards to finish their tower, and unscrewed and knicked the ones we had carefully laid around one of the openings and before the ropeway lock-on point. Fortunately this was over one of the mezanine offices, and I landed on a photocopier, rolled off onto a table next to a number of paper spikes, and landed in the lap of a very excitable secretary. The next week I was working in a paper mill in Kent, with our ropes looped over steam pipes that were supposedly shut off for the duration. Some absolute winker cut the safety locks of the stops and restarted the steam plant. Half an hour later our ropes snapped, and gravity stepped in. I was lucky and landed on my heels on a set of access steps 40 feet below; the way I fell meant I only severely bruised my rips and compacted some vertibrae - with just a short period to think about life whilst the nurses gave me bed baths. The chap I was abseiling with was not so lucky, but is now able to walk again.

I used to do asbestos roof repairs on commercial buildings back in my abseiling days. We used to use Belzona water based rubber roofing paint with nylon reinforcing mesh. This was applied to the whole roof to strengthen and seal the asbestos sheets completely, inside and out and though expensive it was much more economical than reroofing a massive industrial roof. Well over the top for a domestic garage roof! CT1 is a fantastic problem solver for small patch repairs like this, and is my go-to for most repairs around the house. For asbestos I would jet wash the roof to remove organic material and let it dry before sealing. CT1 will go down in the wet, but works better on dry, and it gives you a chance to see if all of the moss was removed. Use copious amounts of spit - NOT WATER - to smooth it into cracks and the surrounding surface. It's disgusting, but its the only way to stop your fingers sticking to the CT1! Unlike NfW, I wouldn't put a brush anywhere near CT1 until it dries, but I would apply some rubber roofing paint or DPM paint for belt n' braces afterwards. Only jetwash the bit you need to repair, otherwise you can cause more problems than you started with! However, if the roof is small I'd want to wash, repair, and encapsulate (paint) it all to prevent future issues. Wear a face mask when jet washing (for zoonotic protection more than particulate). Commercially, the runnoff should be removed, filtered and disposed of as hazardous waste. What you do is up to you, but make sure it it doesn't just run off onto a surface where future heatwaves might make it friable and mean you or your children might end up breathing it, as miniscule as that risk is.

Which is why they introduced planned obsolescance. I have a tools and household goods from the 70's and 80's that still function perfectly. Anything from mid tweenies onwards I expect to replace every five years (or in some cases I can 'bodge' to keep them working) Effectively better manufacturing now just means producing more stuff, not less. And for most 'western' manufacturers this means more production in China/Vietnam/India. I remember seing a chart a few years ago (possibly New Scientist) that showed each nations actual CO2 output each year based on their consumption of goods (manufacturing and shipping emmissions). Since this was agnostic to where the goods were manufactured it gave a much clearer picture of the UK's standing. It also showed historic CO2 output where ironically we had lower CO2 emmissions overall (for goods) due to manufacturing near to the point of sale, and use of local fuel sources (UK Coal and gas) Anyone know the chart I'm thinking of?

If all it does is hold the panel square, then surely no need to use screws into the panel? But dowels or hidden fixings are the proffessional option. Unfortunately, in my experience, most kitchen fitters (espescially those used by the big boxes), are just that. Politely, they can be classed as unskilled bodgers. Or cack-handed barstools.

In Hungary and other Eastern European countries it is still common to find this type of pump in the street dispensing drinking water, so it would still not be a fullproof method to prevent accidental ingestion of waste water. In countries that apply common sense, they just have permanantly afixed signs for any non-potable water above the tap; they say, 'not drinking water'. Surely this is all that is required here too?

Another reason not to go EV! I prefer to use cash wherever possible, as it doesn't crash, conduct random updates, or run out of battery at the worst possible time. And it is much easier to keep an eye on spending.

Maybe, like me, her only affordable full EV option would be a very used Nissan Leaf or early small bettery (and extreemly unreliable) Zoe. Then her range anxiety makes sense. I have a real dilema in that I desperately need a larger vehicle - our Kia ceed with a four bike roof rack barely copes - but I don't want to waste money on an ICE MPV or window van. The only EV that would suite our lifestyle (at least, one that I can ever hope to afford one day), is the Nissan ENV-200 mpv. On the rare occassions they come up for sale, they are £5000+, and also cost lot more in TAX and insurance. That's just imposssible to justify for a vehicle where battery degredation is a real worry. One of the rare EV cases where Jezza Clarson's 'you'll throw the battery away in 3 years' might come true.

Makes no sense other than for health of passangers / public. I wish I had a big enough wallet to make the change on that basis. The numbers of petrol stations in the UK have started to reduce. I guess there will be a tipping point when 'range anxiety' forces ICE drivers into electric... 🤣

You are not thinking holistically. The CO2 cost for burning fuel in an ICE car also needs to take into account the CO2 cost of extracting, manufacturing, and shipping the fuel to petrol station, the emmissions cost of spillages, emmissions during filling up the car, etc. Add to that the low efficiency of the engine in using the fuel (60% is wasted heat and friction) and the fun fact that you can only burn it once. Think well-to-wheel, not vehicle mpg and you will start to see the logic of studies like this. Even when burning FF, electricity generation efficiency and minimal transmission losses make it far more efficient. The most profligate EV (Ferrari, Maserati, ancient Enfield Electric) will still use the 'fuel' with +80% efficiency of conversion. And, unlike ICE, you get some of the expended energy back when you brake or go downhill. Add in that the valuable minerals in car batteries and drive systems will be recycled (+99.6% recyclability of materials, plus reusing Lithium from existing batteries saves more energy as it is already purified). I heard an expert from a mining company say that within 20 years, most battery and magnet materials used in vehicles in the future will come from the circular economy rather than mining extraction. The amount of CO2 used in the manufacture of an EV will be less than that to create an ICE vehicle within the next decade. Unfortunately none of this helps me. I drive less than 2500 miles a year and my diesel car has such low running costs in the grand scheme of things (insurance and TAX would both be higher on an EV) and the upfront cost of buying a second hand EV is too great. The second hand value of my car is probably less than I pay for insurance and fuel each year! I would dearly love to have an EV, but will only be affordable if I'm given a freebie, or a government grant/scrappage scheme that allows me to buy a very used EV

Possibly, if they used a liquid piston (fluidyne) stirling generator, which reduces the count down to a single moving part (the floating magnet in the linear alternator), but AFAIK these have never been made outside of the lab and efficiencies were very much lower than a 'traditional' stirling engine - probably not much better than TEG. There is a fascinating book about stirling engine experiments conducted by Phillips that I read a million years ago. Well worth a read. I was obsessed with Stirling engines at the time, but there are good reasons why ICE is the more dominant technology.