Jackdaw Gas Field Given Go-ahead
By Paul Homewood
At last a glimmer of common sense!
Development of a major North Sea gas field has been approved by regulators.
The Jackdaw field, east of Aberdeen, has the potential to produce 6.5% of Britain’s gas output.
The regulatory approval comes as the UK government seeks to boost domestic energy output following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Shell’s proposals were initially rejected on environmental grounds in October.
UK Business Minister Kwasi Kwarteng welcomed the decision.
"We’re turbocharging renewables and nuclear, but we are also realistic about our energy needs now," he said on Twitter.
"Let’s source more of the gas we need from British waters to protect energy security."
Under the new plan, Shell plans to start production from the field in the second half of 2025.
The oil and gas company said the approval came "at a time when UK energy security is critically required."
Shell said it expected to spend £500m in the UK to develop the new facility.
It said the Jackdaw field should be able to provide gas to 1.4m British homes, and its carbon emissions should eventually be captured for storage, if a large project in Peterhead secures funding.
But environmental campaigners have condemned the move.
The activist group Greenpeace said it believed the approval could be unlawful and it was considering legal action.
"Approving Jackdaw is a desperate and destructive decision from Johnson’s government, and proves there is no long-term plan," said Ami McCarthy, a political campaigner for Greenpeace.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-61666693?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
Needless to say the Luddites from Greenpeace are up in arms.
Strangely silent though has been the Labour Party. It was only last August that Starmer categorically stated he would not support the proposed Cambo oilfield development 77 miles north-west of Shetland.
And in December, the idiot Ed Miliband commented about Shell’s withdrawal from Cambo:
“It makes no environmental sense and now Shell are accepting it doesn’t make economic sense,” he said.
“Ploughing on with business as usual on fossil fuels will kill off our chances of keeping 1.5 degrees alive and carries huge risks for investors as it is simply an unsustainable choice.
“Shell have woken up to the fact that Cambo is the wrong choice. It’s long past time for the Government to do so.”
Careful you don’t fall off that fence, Sir Beer!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
At least if it is remote there is less chance of it being thwarted by eco-thugs. The recent goahead for exploratory drilling at Surrey Hills, or wherever, will inevitably be targeted and probably forced to abandon.
Right.
Finally, some good news. But it’s not here in the US.
US has plenty of in production gas fields, but they arent even yet at the previous 2019 peak output.
Its suits the suppliers not to have any ‘surplus’
Don’t get too excited as they’re still pathologically opposed to onshore gas exploration. Gove has just knocked an Ineos application back ‘because of a temporary fence’.
Article is firewalled, so copied below for those who have the sense to not pay the Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/10/michael-goves-block-gas-exploration-sends-sir-jim-ratcliffes/
********************************************
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s energy giant Ineos is “apoplectically cross” after Michael Gove blocked plans for a fracking site in South Yorkshire.
The billionaire’s bid to produce gas in Britain was dealt a blow this week when the Secretary of State for Levelling Up overturned approval for Ineos’s planning application for a fracking site near Rotherham.
The company had been seeking to extract rock to examine the concentration of shale gas on the site. The company aimed to frack on the site at a later stage.
But the Government has refused planning permission over concerns about plans to construct a three-metre fence around the well to reduce noise from drilling on the site.
Department for Levelling Up cited Mr Gove’s concern the structure would impact the “openness” of the Green Belt Area.
Ineos had been asked to construct the barrier by local planning officers and would have removed it after extracting the rock for testing.
Mr Gove’s intervention has gone against the advice of the planning inspector who said the project should go ahead.
The Department for Levelling Up decision said: “The Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.”
Mr Gove gave “substantial weight” to fears about harm to the green belt from the temporary fence and gave only “moderate weight” to the benefits the scheme would deliver from encouraging the exploration for shale gas.
Jeremy Hunt this week condemned the Government’s decision to pave the way for fracking in his constituency. He wrote to Mr Gove to complain about the “bitterly disappointing” decision to approve plans for an exploration site in Dunsfold in South West Surrey.
Craig Mackinlay MP, chairman of the Conservative Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said: “When Putin invaded Ukraine, the Prime Minister was quick to spot the importance of UK energy security rather than pointlessly importing gas from abroad – including from Russia. Yet in practice, ministers seem to be putting every type of obstacle in the way of us producing our own, homegrown energy.
“How on earth can the impact of a temporary fence be more important than trying to unleash the vast goldmine of gas we have sitting beneath our feet, with all the jobs and tax revenues it will bring?”
The Government is separately conducting a review of its fracking policies and has commissioned a study to look at whether new technologies could improve site safety issues.
One industry source said: “Ineos are apoplectically cross because the timing of this is so unusual. The industry was getting some warm signals on the Government’s attitude to fracking, and everything is submitting documents to this review over the next few weeks.”
A group of 35 MPs and peers wrote to the Business Secretary about the review.
The letter said: “For too long we have been meeting more and more of our gas needs from the Russian-dominated European market sending billions of pounds every year to Putin’s war chest, while our domestic supplies sit idle.”
A spokesman for the Department of Levelling Up said: “Like all planning cases, these decisions were made according to the development plan for each area, taking account of any other material considerations.”
He insisted that Stuart Andrew, a junior minister, had made the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State. Mr Gove had merely given the planning block his legal authority, he said.
It follows criticism of Mr Gove this week from Jeremy Hunt, a challenger to Boris Johnson’s dented leadership. The Government approved an oil project in Mr Hunt’s constituency in Surrey, which the former Health Secretary said was “bitterly disappointing and wrong both economically and environmentally”.
The industry body representing fracking companies complained about an alleged lack of consistency.
Charles McAllister, director of policy at industry group UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said: “There is incontrovertible inconsistency in this decision-making process.
“If all of the decisions had been the same it would have been clearer what the Government is thinking. All of this adds uncertainty.
“In the project that was approved, great weight was given to the benefits of UK natural gas production. But that same weight wasn’t given to the two other sites, and it is not at all clear why.”
Ineos now has six weeks to appeal the decisions at the High Court. The company would also need the Government’s moratorium on fracking to be lifted before the projects could go ahead.
Sir Jim has previously complained that the Government has been prioritising the views of an “ignorant minority” in its fracking policy.
In an apparent attack on climate activist Dame Vivienne Westwood, he said: “Apparently the influential voice of a fashion designer carries more weight than any number of scientific experts.”
Boris Johnson came under pressure to lift the fracking ban from Brexit Minister Lord Frost this week.
Writing in the Telegraph, Lord Frost said: “Start fracking, be clear that North Sea gas is fundamental for the future, and take VAT off energy bills.”
But climate campaigners have warned that fracking will not reduce energy prices and will upset communities in areas near fracking wells.
*******************
PS: BTL reader comments are virtually 100% against this decision and the wider Net Zero nonsense. Honestly, the tone-deaf ‘Conservatives’ will pay a high price for their eco-mentalism.
One of the comments being mine: “Get your finger out, Gove, or the Tories are history regardless of Boris.
You are paid by those who elected you to serve, not to enforce some absurd agenda.”
The problem is the alternatives to the Conservatives have identical demented policies leaving those like us effectively disenfranchised. Reform seem to the the only party with intelligent energy policies.
Craig MacKinlay for prime minister anyone?
Gove has a long and shameful record of being on the wrong side of history and a reputation for vindictive backstabbing at intervals throughout his Conservative career.
An overtly officious and on occasions spittle flecked little man who rarely seems on the side of the electorate.
Of course fracking will reduce prices. Every additional cc produced adds to the overall supply which determines the market price.
Even if all the extracted gas were sent to the international market do these cretins not understand that would apply downward pressure on prices and that a contract to supply the home market would have a marked effect on the balance of payments and the country’s wealth.
I’m no economist but I can do sums.
The argument that fracking won’t reduce prices is based on the fallacious belief that there is an “international price” for Natural Gas. Nothing could be further from the truth-the UK price for July delivery is presently over twice that of the price of NG in the US.
Thanks for the gratuitous insult to Telegraph Suscribers. Its about the only paper out there that gives our side of the story coverage.
On occasion..
I’m a Telegraph subscriber and it’s barely worth paying for. Chill out.
“Development of a major North Sea gas field …”
Major? I remember seeing posts that said it was too small to develop. 🙂
“UK Business Minister Kwasi Kwarteng welcomed the decision.
‘We’re turbocharging renewables and nuclear, but we are also realistic about our energy needs now,’ he said on Twitter.”
It will be realistic when ‘turbocharging renewables’ ceases, and they are wound down.
Perfidious Albion.
Shell is foolish to invest in Britain. Kwarteng says the quiet part out loud. This is only a temporary expediency. Shell’s investment will be crushed as soon as possible.
‘The regulatory approval comes as the UK government seeks to boost domestic energy output following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
‘Shell’s proposals were initially rejected on environmental grounds in October.’
When Russian gas flows again, Shell’s project will be rejected on environmental grounds. Again.
I am sure that the Shell board are alert to the perfidious nature of the denizens of Westminster and that their cleaning staff have higher IQs than our elected representatives
“We’re turbocharging renewables and nuclear, but we are also realistic about our energy needs now,”. If he was ‘realistic’, he’d immediately drop renewables.
“The activist group Greenpeace said it believed the approval could be unlawful and it was considering legal action.”. Just shows how VH they care, doesn’t it, ie, not at all. They WANT people to suffer. Perhaps WE should consider legal action against them, for plotting harm to us.
“…should be able to provide gas to 1.4m British homes, and its carbon emissions should eventually be captured for storage, if a large project in Peterhead secures funding.”
No CO2 can be captured and safely stored if there are no fuels available to make it happen. That means gasoline and biofuels for the transportation involved.
I just don’t buy this “concern” that the local population will be against fracking or nuclear etc.
Wych Farm has been fracked for decades and yet is only a few miles from Sandbanks which ranks as the most expensive real estate outside London. It is actually quite a difficult site to find.
I recently stayed in Puddleton (Dorset) and got chatting to the pub locals.. Asking about what effect Winfrith had on the local community, not one of them even knew there had been a nuclear power plant so close by. Their concern about the oil drilling was even less their knowledge of the power plant.
In my area (Kent) when the government decided NOT to build Dungeness C, the locals raised a petition to get the decision reversed – nearly everyone in the area wanted a new one built. When there were plans to extract coal bed methane from some of the old Kent coalfield sites various “down from London” protestors were met at the site by some rather mean looking locals (ex miners) who were ready to see them off and not in a polite manner.
The government needs to get out of Westminster and meet some of the people in these “affected” areas and realise that what the activist types are telling them is complete BS.
I remember coal bed methane! I once had to travel to site not too far from Falkirk to sample gas from a CBM pilot project. It was so inconspicuous that it was almost impossible to find, eventually almost stumbled upon it, hiding behind a hedgerow, looked like a farmyard.
I worked on an unmanned, fully automated bio-gas plant in Zwolle, Netherlands, extracting the gas from a filled-in landfill site. That was approx 30 years ago. They added the biogas to the town supply.
“The government needs to get out of Westminster and meet some of the people in these “affected” areas and realise that what the activist types are telling them is complete BS.”
Let me fix that …
The government needs to be thown out of Westminster !!!
Let me fix that: Govt needs to get out of our lives, and let us/the market make decisions.
says everything about the sewer that is the BBC.
An article under the “Scottish Business” section has been written by that comedian Justin Rowlatt (the “Climate Editor”) and not by a business/economics reporter.