Shell Share Discussion Threads

[geckotheglorious] 12/9/2023 21:36

jrphoenixw
Post 4054
"I read that most rigs left in the North Sea are looking to redeploy elsewhere. Apparently Harbour Oil are now the largest operator there. Who had heard of them a few years ago... ?"

Harbour is the OLD Premier OIL. Most have heard of them!!!
Just a merger/rebranded name.

[imperial3] 12/9/2023 14:00

If Labour win the next election,the prospects would be very worrying indeed here,with increasing taxation.

[adrian j boris] 12/9/2023 13:12

Japan's MOL, Shell sign maritime decarbonisation deal

Published date: 12 September 2023


Japan's Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) and Shell subsidiary Shell Marine Products Singapore have signed an initial agreement to partner on alternative maritime solutions and carbon emissions.

The initial agreement was signed by representatives from both companies, a press release from MOL said on 8 September.

Shell Marine Products Singapore, which is a fuel supplier, and MOL — a shipping company — are likely to partner on strategic policy issues and will also explore the effectiveness of alternative marine fuels in the context of carbon markets, the press release said.

The collaboration is likely to lead to trials exploring the effective use of bio-based and synthetic marine fuel options.

"Choices of marine fuel will require a strategic decision, then the collaboration with experienced and reliable partners is essential," Kazuhiro Takahashi, executive officer at MOL, said.

"We will focus on joint studies in understanding the impact from different regulatory environments as well as exploring possible pathways for the successful decarbonisation of the shipping industry," Melissa Williams, president of Shell Marine, added.

MOL is the first company in the Japanese ocean shipping industry to set a target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. MOL has positioned its environmental strategy as one of the key strategies in its Blue Action 2035 management plan.

By Mahua Chakravarty

[blackhorse23] 12/9/2023 08:51

Switched to PFC

[lippy4] 12/9/2023 08:40

yes especially brown coal as they use in germany,they prefered coal to nuclear lead by the ex commie merkel,what a travesty for germany..

[adg] 12/9/2023 08:32

I spent a bit of time researching how much CO2 annually released is caused by man - estimates and calculations vary but it would be reasonable to say that it’s less than 5%…. So 95%+++ is naturally emitted
Of the 5% or so of CO2 we emit as a human race almost half of that is estimated to be produced by coal
So these muppet politicians (all sides) and muppet brainwashed genre public are literally almost bankrupting themselves to cause a ridiculous cause - the utter stupidity is so bad it’s actually offensive and sickening.
The maths shows it is futile and unnecessary - all it takes is for those with a few brain cells to peek outside the box and open their eyes to the utter absurdity and ludicrously ridiculous this agenda driven crusade actually is, I despair

[xxxxxy] 12/9/2023 07:42

Planet Earth is a Closed System. Changing where the CO2 is produced doesn't make any difference.

[xxxxxy] 12/9/2023 07:41

John Redwood@johnredwoodIt is pointless self harm to close down fossil fuel based activities here to replace the goods with imports from China. China is increasing her C O 2 output to make them for us and send them round the world to us.6:02 am · 12 Sep 2023·

[adg] 11/9/2023 15:53

Utter lunacy, our own country is broken financially and yet the crazies are further lining the pockets of people/organisations who really don’t deserve it.
A huge con, a huge swindle fuelled by the blinkered brainwashed programmed stupid ignorant masses

[veryniceperson] 11/9/2023 07:41

It's madness. How about them helping their own, lower taxes perhaps.

[xxxxxy] 11/9/2023 07:00

John Redwood@johnredwoodNo wonder our taxes are too high when the government sends another $2bn to an international climate change fund.5:46 am · 11 Sep 2023

[p@] 11/9/2023 06:46

After 2 years of WORLD (China 3years) Covid - No comercial aircraft no cruise ships, reduced public transport its got worse ! This is the same climate that melted the Ice age.Which melted the last ICE 10000 years ago.Not caused by man.

[adg] 10/9/2023 16:37

People seem to be waking up to the net zero bubble

[xxxxxy] 10/9/2023 06:39

Households face an estimated bill of £2,300 each to shut down Britain's gas grid as part of the Government's drive towards net zero, a leaked draft of an official report suggests.The cost of decommissioning the grid could reach a total of £65bn, according to a draft National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) report.... Daily Telegraph

[xxxxxy] 08/9/2023 17:59

John Redwood's DiaryAnyone submitting a comment to this site is giving their permission for it to be published here along with the name and identifiers they have submitted.The moderator reserves the sole right to decide whether to publish or not.My Interventions in the Energy Bill (2)SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 11 COMMENTSJohn Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):If this electrical revolution is to take off, many more people will need to buy electric cars and heat pumps. Does the hon. Gentleman have any advice for the Government on how those items can be made more popular and more affordable?Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Labour):The Government and I have been in considerable discussion about precisely that point. We need to make sure we change the model of ownership of those devices. We perhaps need to have a longer debate about that on another occasion.My Interventions in the Energy Bill (1)SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 82 COMMENTSJohn Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):On that very point-security-what provision is being made for days when there is no wind, given that we will see the closure of most of our nuclear power stations this decade and will have little else to rely on, other than fossil fuel? How are we going to get through?Andrew Bowie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Nuclear and Networks:My right hon. Friend knows that I am a great champion of supporting our oil and gas industry, which continues to supply a large amount of our energy baseload and will do for a significant amount of time to come. As he also knows, we are investing a lot of time and money into ensuring that we deliver the next generation of nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors, so that we have the energy baseload that this country needs so that, as he rightly suggests, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, people can still be assured that the lights will come on. The Conservative principles that I have spoken about are at the very heart of the Bill, which I am pleased to bring before the House today.It is true that some time has passed since the Bill was introduced in July last year. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), was but a boy when this Bill was introduced last year. A huge amount of constructive dialogue and dedicated Toggle showing location ofColumn 275work has taken place during that time. I thank all the Secretaries of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Ministers and the Prime Ministers who have been involved since the Bill was introduced.Since the Bill came to this House from the other place, I have met and engaged with colleagues from all sides of House. We debated the Bill in a lively Second Reading and spent 72 long hours in Committee, so I start by thanking everyone across the House, especially the shadow ministerial team, the former Scottish National party energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all on the Government side, for their constructive engagement in ensuring that we got the Bill to these final stages in a state that, I hope, will be broadly welcomed by most, if not all, Members.My Interventions in the Energy Bill (4)SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 12 COMMENTSJohn Redwood:I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue to all in the House. I hope that the Government will take urgent action to get rid of it, because it is completely unacceptable. It also shows how little time we have to discuss fundamental issues.Craig Mackinlay:My right hon. Friend has put his finger exactly on the pulse. This is a substantial Bill. I say to the Minister that I hope the Government will strip out criminal penalties for not adhering to unknown net zero certification, EPCs and all the rest of it in the future for something as simple as not complying with some of these net zero regulations. This is really serious. I hope that when the Bill returns to the other end of the Palace, consideration can be given to strip out such proposals.I could have gone on at huge length this afternoon. I tabled many amendments because these are overweening powers trying to push and nudge us and to ban things. All I can imagine is that the Chinese embassy will be looking at the Bill with great enthusiasm, as it will drive even more of our high-energy businesses offshore. China will be pleased that it will be able to sell us more solar panels and wind turbines based on its steel, produced on the back of very cheap coal power. That is what we are doing here: driving our high-energy businesses offshore. This is not a recipe for energy security; this is a recipe for energy disaster.I could talk at length about what is wrong with the net zero proposals banning cars, banning oil boilers, banning this and banning that. That is not what we do as Conservatives. We actually allow freedoms. We allow the market to decide. The Bill goes in the wrong direction.My Interventions in the Energy Bill (3)SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 9 COMMENTSJohn Redwood:Does my right hon. Friend accept, on the cost argument, that we also need to build a new gas turbine station as back-up for when the wind does not blow?Sir Alok Sharma:We do need a diversified energy system, and I think the Minister set out all the work that is going on on nuclear, for example. However, as we drive forward for greater energy security, we need to change the planning rules to allow more onshore wind. The objectives of new clause 43 are to ensure a more permissive planning regime. The new clause seeks to lift the current planning restriction that in effect means that a single objection can block a development. It also seeks to ensure that local communities willing to take onshore wind developments will receive direct community benefits.The Government have today responded to new clause 43 by bringing forward a written ministerial statement on onshore wind. I thank the Government for the constructive dialogue we have had over the past days on this issue. I acknowledge that that written ministerial statement, and indeed the accompanying changes to the national planning policy framework, move things forward and will help to deliver a more permissive planning regime for onshore wind.The de facto ban is lifted. The statement clarifies that the policy intent is not to allow very limited objections or even a single objection to ban a planning application, and it is explicit that local communities willing to host onshore wind farms should directly benefit, including potentially through energy discounts. That is positive, but we do need to see the Government's formal response to their consultation on this issue to understand the detail of the precise mechanism by which the benefits regime will work.Toggle showing location ofColumn 291I also welcome the fact that local plans will not be the only route to delivering more onshore wind, with more agile and targeted routes available. Of course it is now a requirement for local planning authorities to support community-led initiatives for renewable and low-carbon energy. Vitally, those policy changes are effective today.My Speech on the Energy BillSEPTEMBER 8, 2023 14 COMMENTSJohn Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):The wish to carry through a great electrical revolution will require a lot of good will from the British people. My worry about this legislation is that it may antagonise them by being unduly restrictive, particularly with the threat of civil and even criminal penalties on some of their conduct. We need to persuade people that the green products will be cheaper, better, more acceptable and make a more general contribution, and not try to bamboozle them. I hope that there will be an opportunity to vote on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) to get rid of the threat of criminal and civil penalties over the issue of a proper transition.For things to take off, the products-the heat pumps and the electric cars-will have to be much more popular. More people will have to believe in their specifications and adequacy, and they will have to be more affordable. I, for example, would be very happy to have a heat pump to heat my rather small London flat, but I am told that there is not one available because I am not allowed to adorn the outside of the block of flats with any of the things that a person would need to make a heat pump system work. There must be practical solutions to these problems. We cannot force the pace by legislation; the markets and the investment have to catch up.My second worry about this legislation is that energy policy has to achieve three things at the same time. Yes, we have to take considerable environmental issues into account, but we also need affordable energy and we need available energy. In recent years, all main parties have put so much emphasis in their policy making on the environmental that we are missing the obvious, which is that we are no longer guaranteeing security of supply. We cannot guarantee security of supply if we are mainly relying on wind farms. We cannot rely on solar on a dark winter evening when people want to cook their meal and turn the heating up, because there is no solar. We have to look at the relative costs. The unit cost of energy generated by a wind farm that is already built is very cheap on one costing system, but if we have a gas turbine system that is non-operational for most of the time, only kicking in occasionally when the wind does not blow, that is part of the cost of the delivery of the wind power and it is a far more expensive way of running gas turbines than if we use them all the time.Craig Mackinlay, (Member for South Thanet, Conservative):My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the extra energy provision that we need to make renewables work. Has he considered the true environmental cost of the batteries, the digging up of cobalt by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the smelting and all the rest of it? That is the real cost of relying on renewables, and we hear very little about the real cost of the batteries.John Redwood:I am greatly in favour of doing proper, whole-life carbon accounting, taking into account all the CO2 generated by making the green product-its lifetime use, on which it may be better, and its disposal, on which it may be worse. It is certainly the case that if we acquire an electric vehicle that has generated a lot of CO2 in its production and then we do not drive it very much, we will have not a CO2 gain but a CO2 loss, so there must be realistic carbon accounting. We also should not fall  for the national fallacy that is built  into  the international system. For example, we could say that we have brought our CO2 down because we are importing things, but that actually generates a lot more CO2 than had we done it for ourselves.This is the essence of the argument about our own gas. If we get more of our own gas down a pipe, it produces a fraction of the CO2 for the total process than if we import liquefied natural gas having had to use a lot of energy compressing and liquefying the gas, a lot of energy switching it back, and a lot of energy on long-distance sea transport. Therefore, we must be realistic in the CO2 accounting.Finally, I do not think that the Bill is giving us much guidance. For example, if the electrical revolution does take off, because the really popular products arrive and people find them affordable, how will they get the power delivered to their homes? We are already told that many wind farms cannot be started or cannot be connected to the grid any time soon. There needs to be a massive expansion of grid  capacity and a big digging-up of roads and re-cabling of Britain. If my constituents are all to adopt an electric car and a heat pump, we need a massive expansion both of electricity generation and of grid capacity. I do not see that happening at the moment. There need to be market reactions and proper investment plans, and this legislation is not helping.I fear that this Bill adds to the costs. It adds targets that could turn out to be unrealistic and that could be self-defeating, because quite often the actions taken to abate CO2 end up generating more CO2 at the world level and mean that we have exported an awful lot of crucial business that we would be better off doing here.....John Redwood

[xxxxxy] 08/9/2023 07:55

John Redwood@johnredwoodThe lack of bids to put in more offshore wind shows it is not as low cost as some thought. Nor is it carbon free to build and install.7:34 am · 8 Sep 2023

[xxxxxy] 08/9/2023 07:53

Patrick Brown, the co-director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute in California, has blown the whistle on an open secret about climate science: it's biased in favour of alarmism. He published a paper in Nature magazine on the effect of climate change on wildfires. In it he told the truth: there was an effect. But not the whole truth: other factors play a big role in fires too. On Maui, the failure of the electric utility to manage vegetation along power lines was a probable cause of the devastating recent fires, but climate change proved a convenient excuse. Editors at journals such as Nature seem to prefer publishing simplistic, negative news and speculation about climate change. "It is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility," wrote Brown. So, after learning this lesson the hard way when his nuanced papers were rejected, he adapted his latest to suit their apparent prejudices – and it was published. Nature's editor, Magdalena Skipper, responded by trying to shoot the messenger, criticising Brown's deception as "poor research practices". We have known for years that distinguished scientists who think that global warming is a problem but not a "crisis" get ostracised, cancelled or rejected by peer reviewers. Meanwhile, even the most trivial study that comes to an alarmist conclusion – such as a notorious one that found fish behaviour to be affected by carbon dioxide – gets rushed into print and celebrated in the media. Junior scientists notice and tailor their texts accordingly.... Matt Ridley... Daily Telegraph

[jrphoenixw2] 07/9/2023 21:11

>> ADG-#4040 'Personally I think the writing is on the wall for the levy…… I feel there is a change in direction with government and to a lesser extent, the general public, as to the stark reality of the consequences of the suicidal and hypocritical net zero debacle sets in.'
-----------------------------------

Sadly I doubt it ADG. It was only hiked recently and pols rarely want to be seen and have to explain U-turns. Reversing it would be against the whole current cultural narrative of being 'good and kind'. No matter the UK will have to pay a premium to import O+G from despotic regimes 'or granny freezes this winter'.

I read that most rigs left in the North Sea are looking to redeploy elsewhere. Apparently Harbour Oil are now the largest operator there. Who had heard of them a few years ago... ?

Repealing the levy equates to admitting you're a bunny-killer. Neither the Cons nor Lab will do it, neither have the vision from which to explain such credibly. Though TBH there is increasingly very little between the policies of those two parties these days.

[adg] 07/9/2023 09:58

Do the masses actually understand the amount of energy required to produce LNG from its gaseous state? Do the masses know the amount of energy required for transportation of the LNG, do the masses know the energy required to gasify the LNG?
Do the masses know the energy involved in producing the process and pipe and infrastructure and transportation tankers for LNG production and shipping….?
If they actually looked at the whole debacle logically, scientifically and pragmatically they would see what a counterintuitive con the whole regime actually is….

[xxxxxy] 07/9/2023 08:02

The government is generally in danger of trying to do much and intervening too often, often at great expense. The Energy Bill is another good example. This Bill sets out a course for large scale spending on carbon capture and storage. This will need to be highly subsidised, or if charged to customers will be a further ratchet in the UK's high energy prices, forcing more UK industry to close and more imports to replace it. The idea behind carbon capture is if money is spent harvesting CO2 and storing it in old gas wells the UK could burn a bit more fossil fuel in the knowledge that the extra  CO2 that produced will be taken out of the air by the carbon storage  system.          There are several problems with this idea. If other countries do not do the same the UK is left with dearer energy. We  will make less and import more. World CO2 volumes will increase by at least all the extra CO2 long haul transport from abroad for the goods may generate, and may increase further  because for example the goods come from China still burning a lot of coal in its energy mix. The extra costs will in the first instance attract substantial government subsidies and spending, putting more upwards pressure on interest rates and limiting the scope for tax cuts. If at the same time as putting in carbon storage  the government continues to run down UK produced gas and imports more LNG that will also raise CO 2 output worldwide as LNG generates so much more CO 2 than North Sea gas down a pipe.            It is a bad  idea that the UK should allocate £20 billion spending to this technology before competitors agree to adopt it and at a time when total public spending is too high. The Energy Bill contains other interventions that will damage UK busines and cost too much. The government is wrong to take heavy handed powers to make people insulate their homes or adopt particular heating and transport technologies. The market is best placed to develop great green products. Like smartphones and on line shopping green products will sell themselevs when they cut our energy bills and give us a better life.  Create a good framework for setting up and growing a business, with lower taxes to attract corporate investment. That would progress the green revolution better than hundreds of pages of restrictive regulation, windfall taxes and imposition on individuals.          Governments can try to do too much. When it tries to back winners it often finds losers apply for the money. When it tells people what to do and what to buy it builds up their resentment and is often self defeating. When government  seeks to cut carbon dioxide output in the UK it usually boosts it globally by requiring CO 2 heavy imports. When it seeks to help devolved governments and institutions who have not sort out their own problems it just ends up taking the blame for their failings. The government should learn from the bad misjudgment of the Mayor of London to tax older vans and cars, leading to a rush of lawbreaking with many attacks on much hated cameras.... John Redwood

[adg] 07/9/2023 07:19

Bounced off 2500 a few times - third time lucky I suspect
Fwiw I checked earlier and high over last few years was 2613 back in March 23

[craftyale] 06/9/2023 19:08

Oil almost at a year high, Shell at 6 month high, 2500p soon.