This week’s news that a large gas field has been discovered in Lincolnshire should be treated with caution. We here at Cliscep are sceptics, after all. There has been much excitement in some quarters about the possibility that vast amounts of gas could potentially be extracted and that this could enhance the UK’s energy security. A recent BBC article cited claims by the company that made the discovery (Egdon Resources) to the effect that it could generate a GDP contribution of £140bn and up to 250,000 direct and indirect jobs and offset 202 million tonnes of CO2 associated with imported gas – said to be equivalent to the annual emissions of “over 40 million cars”. When renewable energy companies make claims of this type I tend to be highly sceptical, and I will also reserve judgement in this case. It’s simply far too early to tell. There are also suggestions that any gas there might be will be capable of extraction only by fracking, and local people are concerned about this possibility. I think that concerns about the safety of fracking are overdone but, just as I believe that worried locals confronted with industrial scale wind, solar, pylon and BESS developments should be listened to, so should locals concerned about fracking. National infrastructure projects relating to the UK’s energy needs and security should be subject to a fair and objective planning regime, and not one driven by dogma one way or the other.

Which brings me to the nub of this issue. Now that fracking is potentially back on the agenda, it’s worth taking a look at the utterly inconsistent and hypocritical way in which our current government seeks to treat locals concerned about fracking and locals concerned about renewable energy projects and their associated industrial-scale infrastructure. A couple of internet articles cast some light on this topic. First, an article from Drill or Drop? in October 2022. Second, an article in the Metro from December 2024.

The first article was written around the time of Liz Truss and her ill-fated and short-lived government, which proposed to remove the ban on fracking. Ed Miliband, now Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, was then the Shadow Climate Secretary, and he took the opportunity to visit what the article described as the “shale gas village” of Misson in Nottinghamshire (a company had drilled a shale gas well nearby in 2019, though it had not yet secured planning permission to start fracking). Speaking in the village pub, Mr Miliband said he would stand with local communities and would ban fracking for good – 70% of village residents had signed a petition opposing the shale gas well. It is, I think, worth looking at what exactly Mr Miliband said, and comparing (and contrasting) it with what he and the Prime Minister have to say about people who oppose their favoured energy infrastructure projects. Here’s what he said to the inhabitants of Misson:

Labour will stand with communities in opposing the Conservatives’ dodgy plans to impose expensive, dirty and dangerous fracking on the British people.

Fracking would make no difference to energy prices and could risk the health of local communities, nature and water supplies.

Labour will stand up to Liz Truss’ unjust charter for earthquakes, including her plans to outsource decisions about local consent to fracking companies.

He is reported as having more to say, too. He described as “insulting” the suggestion that residents would be offered cash for consent. He said the government could not be trusted. Fracking would industrialise the local landscape and would ruin local businesses, leading to a loss of local employment, he said. There were cheaper, quicker, renewable alternatives to tackle the energy crisis, he added, in a statement of great dubiety.

Fast forward just over two years to the Metro article, with Mr Miliband now in a position of power, and it’s clear that all the things he held dear when talking about fracking don’t apply to his plans for renewable energy and associated developments. Unlike Liz Truss, he can be trusted! It seems that offering residents cash for consent is no longer insulting. Instead, he is reported as saying “The principle for this government is, if you host clean energy infrastructure in your community, you should benefit from it.” Among the other incentives offered to people living near such sites will be “community funds for solar and wind” he added. He now thinks:

It also means making some decisions that I think are the right decisions, but some people may not support – for example, the need for large onshore wind farms.

His concerns, when he was in opposition, no longer seem to count. His 2022 worries about industrialising the local landscape, ruining local businesses, and a consequent loss of local employment bother him no more. Also ditched is any plan to stand with local communities concerned about the imposition on them of expensive, dirty and dangerous industrial infrastructure. Risk to the health of local communities, nature and water supplies can now be ignored. Concerned that a BESS scheme on your doorstep might be dirty and dangerous? Bothered about local water sources, nature, health? Forget it. Sir Keir has vowed to defeat what he calls a challenge culture by taking on the Nimbys, as he so charmingly puts it.

It gets worse, too. Members of this government have repeatedly said, both when in opposition and now that they are in power, that they intend to “ban fracking for good”. In response to the Lincolnshire discovery, the Telegraph reports a spokesman for DESNZ as saying:

We intend to ban fracking for good and make Britain a clean energy superpower to protect current and future generations. The biggest risk to our energy security is staying dependent on fossil fuel markets and only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from price spikes.

Whilst respecting the wishes of locals who are anxious about fracking, I regard the above comments as both imbecilic and undemocratic. What does banning fracking for good mean? Do they have the arrogance to assume that they can somehow prevent a future sovereign Parliament elected by voters some years hence from pursuing its own energy policy? What are they going to do? Booby trap the gas fields? Probably they think they can cap all existing shale wells in order to make future exploitation more difficult and more expensive. As for energy security, seeking to guarantee that in no circumstances will the UK in future be able to exploit its own energy resources has to be one of the crassest policies imaginable. By all means, as Labour has a constitutional mandate (albeit not a popular one, since only around 20% of the electorate voted for them) pursue the energy policy today that you believe in. I disagree with you, but that’s my problem – living in a democracy means that I respect the outcome of the election even though I disapprove of it. But how dare you purport to legislate for the future? This reflects comments in the early House of Lords debate about Great British Energy (GBE) to the effect that steps should be taken to “future proof” GBE against attempts by a future government to undermine it. Such sentiments are unacceptable in a democracy. I’m not very keen on hypocritical politicians either.

15 Comments

  1. Where will these idiots stand with regard to fracking when it is used for geothermal projects? Two-tier indeed, I expect.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. To be honest, a word unrecognised by politicians, MiniBrain and 2TFGNHK will say anything if it means they are in power. The current path of travel if Green, and if Green means bankruptcy for the Nations it matters not a jot- if Green means intermittent energy and blackouts that could in the case of a “black start” last up to six weeks it matters not a jot- if Green means exporting 20,000,000 jobs and securing 20 Green well paid jobs it matters not a jot- all that matters is that every effort possible is made to achieve a totally deindustrialised country, reliant of both intermittent energy, showing the world just hoe “Great” Green is…………..and simultaneously asked both the First and Third World for aid!Green = Bankrupcy,

    A intelligent energy strategy would harness any and all energy resources- oil, coal, gas, nuclear, tidal, wind, solar, fracked oil/gas- and settle on the most cost effective whilst investigating and carrying out R&D into improving all existing energy sources, improving efficiency whilst looking at new technology such as high capacity batteries with 24hr+ storage, but the key is to be open minded not fixed on one hard and fast rule- Fossil BAD, Green GOOD.

    While we have Eco Zealots in charge we are doomed to failure.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you Mark. A remarkable display of hypocrisy, and I’m sure there is still a rich mine to be dug with plenty more examples.

    Miliband #1: “I’ll protect you from the evil developers.”

    Milband #2: “I’m the developer now, so get out of my way you saps.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. micda67, spot on. I cannot understand why a department charged with ensuring the nation’s energy security deliberately rules out important sources of energy on dogmatic grounds that make no sense in the real world.

    The argument that UK gas, oil or coal, if not kept in the ground, would inevitably be sold abroad, is palpable nonsense. The current government is one with dirigiste tendencies, so it should have no objections to measures which would ensure UK fossil fuels remain in the UK in order to enhance energy security. The obvious answer is to have a nationalised energy company, but there are other options. For example, how about telling energy companies that a windfall profits tax will reduce in direct proportion to the extent that they keep them product in the UK (and, conversely, will increase if they sell their products abroad)?

    Jit, you nailed it in short order!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. LNG is a lot more energy-intensive to produce and import than UK sourced piped gas. This doesn’t occur to net zero obsessives, or they don’t care anyway as climate is only a pretend issue in front of other agendas.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “Villagers campaign against gas field plans”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8rndrvge1o

    Protestors have marched through a village to oppose plans for what could be the largest onshore gas field in the UK.

    More than 200 residents and supporters marched through Burniston near the North Yorkshire Moors to oppose the small-scale fracking plans by Europa Oil and Gas.

    Resident Steve Illingworth lives next door to the planned site. He said he was concerned about the level of noise and light pollution as well as the environmental impact.

    But Europa Oil and Gas chief executive William Holland said once the site was running it would have a minimal impact to the local area.

    The oil and gas exploration company submitted plans for the scheme to North Yorkshire Council on February 17 but a decision has yet to be made.

    The plans would use a ‘proppant squeeze’ procedure, which has been regularly used in the UK for a number of years….

    Like

  10. “Earth’s heat to power 10,000 homes in renewable energy first for UK”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewzg77k721o

    This perhaps represents an attempt to emulate Iceland, which has the great good fortune to enjoy abundant geothermal heat sources which are readily exploitable (with the down-side of volcanic activity and earthquakes). I think it’s an interesting option, potentially a useful supplement to our energy requirements. But is it not a form of fracking?

    …”You drill deep boreholes into the ground, and then fractures within the granite rock are used to circulate the water that pick up the heat [that is] used for electricity production,” explained Dr Monaghan, head of geothermal at the British Geological Survey (BGS).…

    Like

  11. There’s obviously been a press release:

    “‘Magic beneath the surface’: pioneering geothermal plant launched in Cornwall

    A new mini power station and lithium extraction facility near Redruth are set to bolster green energy and create jobs”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/26/cornwall-new-geothermal-project-launches

    The fracking aspect is dismissed very readily:

    …A few people have raised concerns about earthquakes. The company accepts that the testing and development of geothermal reservoirs in Cornwall is likely to cause some minor seismicity but there have been no issues so far.…

    Compare and contrast the Guardian’s reporting of fracking for gas.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. H/T to a commenter way down the pecking order on the BBC’s Have Your Say on the story. It appears that the project received a guaranteed funding contract under AR5 which, in today’s prices, is at £170.50 per MWh. Although I think the scheme is interesting in principle then, unless those prices come down, more schemes of this nature will see the cost of energy go up not down (though I certainly concede that if it could be rolled out at scale, it might offer a degree of energy security):

    https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR5-MGP-800/

    It’s interesting that fracking of this type enjoys taxpayer-funded largesse under a long-term guaranteed contract, but that Miliband wants to ban permanently fracking for gas, even though it wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a penny. Another comment is also highly sceptical, as follows:

    If one facility powers 10,000 households, then:

    To power an additional 28.6 million households (10,000 × 2,860), you would need 2,860 more facilities.
    Total cost: £143 billion

    Construction Time
    Each takes 20 years to build.

    If built simultaneously, this would require:
    Massive parallel investment
    Huge workforce scaling
    Extensive supply chain capacity

    For R&D, excellent. In practice hmmmm.

    Like

  14. Speaking of permanently banning fracking:

    “Bill to permanently ban fracking approved by Executive”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0wzey2dno

    The Stormont Executive has approved legislation that will permanently end petroleum exploration and licensing, including fracking, in Northern Ireland.

    The Department for the Economy said it will introduce the bill to the NI Assembly “at the earliest opportunity”.

    Fracking involves injecting high-pressure liquid between layers of rock to force open fissures and release any oil and natural gas stored there.

    The Economy Minister Caoimhe Archibald has welcomed the move saying it “marks a significant milestone” in her commitment to decarbonisation.

    The legislation would remove the Department for the Economy’s statutory powers to issue licences for petroleum exploration or extraction.

    Archibald said: “The evidence is clear: petroleum development will not deliver meaningful economic benefit for our region, carries significant environmental and community risks, and is incompatible with the Executive’s commitments on climate action and energy transition.”…

    ...Archibald said that by ending petroleum licensing, efforts can be focussed on things like renewable energy and energy efficiency.

    As well as “emerging green technologies that will deliver real economic opportunity and support energy security.”…

    In a democracy, how can any politician seek to ban anything “permanently”? How dare a politician today dare to presume to deny future electorates freedom? As for “climate action” in Northern Ireland, the hubris is off the scale. Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions represent around 0.04% of global emissions.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.