stewartb
The recent session of the Scottish Affairs Committee of the Commons gained quite a few ‘insights’ from oral evidence given by Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Energy) at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)
See transcript of the oral evidence at https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16235/pdf/
Shanks – ‘Oil and gas has played a critical role in our energy story for the past 60 years. It will continue to play a critical role for decades to come, …’ (my emphasis)
Later, Committee Chair (Patricia Ferguson MP, Labour): ‘Do you think it is necessary to reduce North Sea oil and gas production in order to scale up clean energy?’
Shanks: ‘I do not think it is’.
Asked by another Committee member later in the session: ‘.. the drawdown in oil and gas is not contingent on the standing up of renewables. We do not need oil and gas to stand down before we can stand up renewables. Would that be your view?’
Shanks: ‘Yes, absolutely’.
The TuS blog post has already highlighted the following:
Chair: ‘On the basis of the premise that oil and gas will continue to play a part in the mix, would the UK economy benefit from prioritising domestic production over imported options?’
Shanks: ‘I do not think it makes a material difference, ….’
On the merits or otherwise of domestic production over imports, the DESNZ civil servant stated: ‘The emissions part, the balance of importing versus domestic production, is a very complicated calculation. …. when you extrapolate that beyond just the domestic view and look at it globally, the Climate Change Committee has concluded that it is not possible to establish the net impact of domestic UK production on global emissions.’
Does this mean there is no measurable global climate detriment from prioritising use of UK domestic oil & gas production over imports? If so why not ….?
The civil servant added: ’The reason there is not that direct connect is because it is not clear— especially when we have relatively low demand for fossil fuels as part of the global market—that turning down our production would have any demonstrable impact on the overall global production of hydrocarbons. You have gas production, LNG production and gas storage around the world that may continue, regardless of the demand from the UK and regardless of what the UK continental shelf is producing.’
And: ‘There is a propensity to draw a straight line between, “If you produce more domestically, there are lower emissions,” but when you stand back to the global scale, it is very hard to prove that argument, unfortunately. That is what the Climate Change Committee has said as well.’
Does this mean continuing to support domestic production of oil & gas — if kept within the bounds of UK demand which it long has been – would have no measurable impact on global levels of production, and by extension, no measurable impact globally on climate detriment from the production and use of oil & gas?
On other aspects of the present government’s policy for the future:
Shanks: ‘… The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields. How we bring that into legislation will be brought forward as a result of the consultation response.’
Later in the session: ‘… I will say categorically that the Government are committed to their manifesto commitment of not issuing new licences to explore new fields.’
Finally, a Committee member (Dave Doogan, the SNP MP) tried to introduce some common sense! By the time of his intervention, the Committee had already heard that: (i) oil & gas will be critical to the UK for decades to come; (ii) there is ‘no material difference’ between domestic production and imports; (iii) UK production of oil & gas makes no measurable difference to global levels of production (- and by extension, arguably no measurable difference to climate detriment relative to that associated with production occurring globally?); but (iv) no new UK Continental Shelf exploration licences will be issued.
In response to the statement on ‘no new licenses’ Doogan asked: ‘Can you think of another industry with substantial domestic demand and substantial domestic supply capacity where the Government would introduce an externality, such as the role that the Government or their agencies have in licensing, to restrict the domestic ability for supply to meet demand? Is there any other industry where the Government would countenance that type of intervention?’
Shanks: ‘.. we have always licensed fields in the North Sea. It is an important part of how we have managed it to date, but as I have said in a number of my other answers, the North Sea is a declining basin. When you talk about an externality, I think the most fundamental one is that the geology of the North Sea means that extraction has been diminishing year upon year upon year and will continue to do so.’
Doogan’s follow up searched for logic: ‘By that logic, when you are using the age of the basin as a determinant, your manifesto commitment to not issuing further licences, which you have made a point of saying you are going to stand behind, will have no bearing, because you are saying that this is because of the age and maturity of the basin and its ability to continue to produce. If that is the determining factor, what difference does it make how many licences you issue? That is a risk for industry, to research and apply for licences that may not produce. That is industry’s risk, but you are putting the Government in the middle of that and saying, “No, we are not going to issue those licences”.’
Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, what’s the downside of further exploration at industry’s cost and risk? And recall from earlier: ‘We do not need oil and gas to stand down before we can stand up renewables. Would that be your view?’ Shanks: ‘Yes, absolutely’.’
The head of the trade body, Offshore Energy UK writing in Energy Voice, picked up on the minister’s reference to ‘geology’ and the decline of UKCS production: ‘We also need to be clear about the role of policy. The Minister said the decline in the basin is geological, not political. But policy shapes investment. It shapes confidence. And it shapes whether people see a future for themselves in this industry.’
Source: Energy Voice (July 4) ’Let’s be clear about the value of the North Sea – Offshore Energies UK boss responds to minister’s claims there’s no difference between oil and gas imports and domestic North Sea production.’
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
MSM Monitor tweeted a recording yesterday of Michael shanks being interviewed on Radio Scotland. This was via the Labour U turn on zonal pricing which would have seen us in Scotland (at last) pay less on our energy bills as opposed to us paying more than others within the UK. (but greedy energy companies, politicians and media were against that happening so Labour caved in – U Turned- to instigating their pledge on zonal pricing , after all it was only the Jocks who were being let down……….again).
Shanks was asked :
“We basically export electricity to England and Wales but we are going to pay the same amount , why aren’t we paying less if we are a net exporter” ?
Shanks response:
“There isn’t Scottish wind and English wind there is GB wind paid for by bill payers right across the country and so I would make that really important distinction”.
MSM Monitor tweeted with this recording:
“Michael Shanks has claimed there’s no such thing as Scottish electricity because it’s generated by “GB wind”. An extraordinary statement from a so-called Scottish MP”.
Of course the same Michael Shanks would defend “GB” Energy projects that have reduced energy bills for specific places in England which were heralded by Ed Milliband in tweets.
On 21 March 2025 Milliband tweeted this:
This is what clean power can do for our country. Great British Energy, partnering with @educationgovuk and @DHSCgovuk to reduce energy bills. Cheap, clean, homegrown power putting more money back into frontline services. Great to see that in action today with @bphillipsonMP (Education Minister for England).
This was a project by GB Energy for solar panels on roofs for 200 schools “across the country” which means in England. Phillipson noted that it, as a project, had made “such a big difference” with the “money that’s being saved going back into reinvesting into teaching staff” .
GB energy project ……but not one that is instigated as an initial project in the place where the so called HQ of GB Energy is based, as in Scotland, but instead in another nation, England.
On the Gov UK website it states that:
“In England around £80 million in funding will support around 200 schools, alongside £100 million for nearly 200 NHS sites, covering a third of NHS trusts, to install rooftop solar panels that could power classrooms and operations, with potential to sell leftover energy back to the grid. The first panels are expected to be in schools and hospitals by the end of summer 2025, saving schools money for the next academic year”
(So Ed’s “across the country” in respect to 200 Schools did actually mean in England and not his whole GB ).
Ed Milliband has also said “Wind power has overtaken gas as Britain’s biggest source of electricity. This is a huge moment in our journey away from energy insecurity and towards clean homegrown power”.
I read online that “Most turbines in the European Union produce electricity at an average of 25% of their rated maximum power due to the variability of wind resources but Scotland’s wind regime provides average capacity factor of 31% or higher on the west and northern coasts. The load factor recorded for the onshore North Rhins windfarm near Stranraer was 40%, which is typical for well-sited mainland windfarms. A small wind farm in Shetland with five Vestas V47 660 kW turbines recently achieved a world record of 58% capacity over the course of a year. According to a recent report, the world’s wind market offers many opportunities for Scottish companies, with total global revenue over the next five years estimated at £35 billion and continued growth forecast until at least 2025″
(So basically it is ripe for any UK government to exploit and plunder for the benefit of others within their UK , as it’s not “Scotland’s wind” resources it’s “GB’s wind” resources and so it will be a “GB” UK government that will get the revenue and benefit from it).
Unfortunately Labour MP’s like Michael Shanks wants Scotland to pool and share another one of it’s resources to benefit his whole UK (mostly England) while many of the GB Energy projects and funding is being diverted by his party as the UK government mainly to places in England.
In October 2024 the Labour UK government had pledged nearly £22bn for projects to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production.
“It said the funding for two “carbon capture clusters” on Merseyside and Teesside, promised over the next 25 years, would create thousands of jobs, attract private investment and help the UK meet climate goals”.
So “GB” jobs or ‘English’ jobs Michael ? (definitely English jobs only).
I am sure that Michael Shanks constituents will be pleased that he, as their supposed political representative at WM, is seemingly not working on their behalf in respect to him trying to reduce their energy bills as instead his focus is more on other areas within his GB (same with his party as the new UK government).
So Scotland and indeed his constituents should continue to pay more than England for electricity as according to him it is apparently “GB wind” that generates energy and he also sees that it is “bill payers across the country (GB) who pay for it” (does he mean the English people) and not just the Jocks.
You know that’s how they, UK politicians, will also eventually steal our water as they will present it as “GB” water not just “Scottish” water.
So once again we in Scotland will be left high and dry (perhaps literally) as we ‘pool and share’ yet another precious Scottish resource that we have, where all various UK governments will yet again declare it to be a source originating from GB.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 2 people
DICK TURPIN IS A BIG HERO OF ALL THAT IS ENGLISH
HE ROBBED ALL OF THE SERFS
LikeLike