France’s Virtue-signalling slavish adherence to green dogma takes another step

Here’s a piece that I planned to post some time ago but never quite got around to;

In what must be one of the most bizarre political stunts in my memory, France will stop granting new oil exploration permits next year as it seeks to end all oil and gas production by 2040.

Yep, you read that right, end all oil and gas production by 2040.

“The proposed legislation is part of President Emmanuel Macron’s broader plan to take the lead against climate change, after U.S. counterpart Donald Trump ditched the landmark Paris agreement to fight global warming.”

Now France doesn’t currently produce a whole lot of oil, but Oil revenues are worth

“as much as 300 million euros ($358 million) in annual revenue, and accounts for as many as 5,000 jobs, directly and indirectly”

Of course France won’t stop requiring fuel, power or petroleum-based products so this plan will have Zero impact on global warming and CO2 emissions and is therefore complete folly.

But they will be able to feel morally superior to the rest of the Western World for taking this decision – perhaps with that warm fuzzy feeling they can turn down their heating, then they might actually make a difference to global warming!

Qatar Gas where UK fracked gas should be

pipes-2

From a recent article in Downstream Today.

Qatargas, the world’s largest LNG producer, signed a five-year sales and purchase agreement with Petronas LNG UK on Wednesday . . . Under the agreement Qatargas will deliver 1.1 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year to the UK-based venture until Dec. 31 2023, extending a current five-year contract that was due to expire on Dec. 31 2018.

Why are we importing a million tonnes of LNG from Qatar?  Because we’re not producing enough gas of our own and as coal and oil fired power stations are shut down thanks to EU directives we’re becoming more reliant on importing the energy that we need.

Of course if the government stopped faffing about and got on with promoting fracking in this country we’d have a massive reserve of natural gas that we could tap into for years to come.

 

 

Pipeline policy follow-up

As a follow-up to my post from late August about the lack of joined up thinking within the EU for its gas pipeline plans, a more comprehensive article has emerged about the new relationship being forged between Russia and Turkey;

pipes-1

The article talks at length about how Russia will be able to increase its dominance in European gas markets – directly through a new TurkStream pipeline and indirectly through Turkey’s influence over the TANAP pipeline.

If this happens, Russia’s state-owned Gazprom will exercise high levels of control over both projects.

As a further embarrassment to the EU; Russia and Azerbaijan are looking to be involved with Iranian gas reserves (which are vast) and which were

also coveted by the West, which hopes to ship them into the EU as a hedge against Russia.

Far from reducing the EUs reliance on Russian gas “which supplies a third of the EU’s natural gas overall—though a much higher percentage to Germany and other northern EU nations” it seems that Russia is likely to increase its share unless another avenue can be found.

The most likely option at the moment is LNG from the US which has a glut of gas available thanks to fracking which has opened up new export opportunities as well as reducing domestic energy prices – too bad the EU (and previous UK governments) seem determined to ignore this fantastic opportunity on this side of the Atlantic.

Plan for new connector is not joined up thinking

Two interesting stories about the European gas market have emerged recently.

Gas Holder 2

The first, points to an EU funded plan to build the “Balticconnector”, between Finland and Estonia, to help reduce the Baltic states’ dependence on Russian gas imports.

This article states that the EU is funding 75% of the Project – the maximum allowed. What’s interesting here is that this implies that there is no business case for the project – i.e. there’s no profit in it – otherwise an energy provider or gas company would be funding the project. So clearly it is politically motivated.

This is further proven by the fact that;

The pipeline will be constructed by Finnish Baltic Connector Oy, a project company set up by the Finnish government, and Estonian Elering AS, operator of the country’s gas and power grid.

And that

The Finnish government decided to go ahead with the pipeline last year, despite its majority state-owned gas utility Gasum pulling out due falling domestic demand.

I wonder how the people of Europe feel about their money being used for political purposes?

Particularly as a second article talks about the TurkStream gas project that will consist of two gas pipelines supplying Russian gas for use by Turkey and for delivery to Europe. Thereby increasing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

Maybe the EU should stop meddling in things it has no control over.

EU Sanctions Fail to Frighten Russia

_Moral can't stadn the heat Gas ring

The EU continues to try and arm-twist Russia into submission with increasingly tough sanctions on people and assets, but so far with little obvious impact.

As usual, the Kremlin have their own ways and means which now involve a long term deal with China as detailed here.

Russia and China signed energy, trade and finance agreements on Monday proclaimed by Moscow as proof that a policy turn to Asia is bearing fruit and will help it to weather Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis.

The 38 deals, signed on a visit to Moscow by Premier Li Keqiang, allow for deeper cooperation on energy and a currency swap worth 150 billion yuan ($25 billion) intended partly to reduce the sway of the U.S. dollar.

They are among the first clear successes of the eastward shift, ordered by President Vladimir Putin to avoid isolation over the sanctions, since the vast nations reached a $400 billion, 30-year natural gas supply agreement in May

Oh dear.

More Evidence Of The EU Job Shredding Machine

tough at the top

From Interfax Energy Daily, another damning indictment of EU energy policy and it’s effect on business in Europe;

Brussels must consider fundamental energy policy changes to prevent a mass exodus of industrial players, according to speakers at a conference held at London’s Chatham House on Monday.

“The most effective energy policies are the ones that are transparent, predictable and based on cost benefit analysis. Importantly, policies [should] allow market prices and open competition to determine the solutions,” said Franklin.

“The EU’s policy approach, which has favoured government-mandated solutions, has undermined the goals themselves,” Franklin added.