5 hours ago, lol-lol said:

The super massive Brent field known for being sweet and i understood that the strata that the North Sea is is light crude or gas.

Which fields have heavier fractions ?

Yes, Brent crude oil is ideal for producing diesel, so with the amount of diesel and petrol currently being used in the UK, it is indefensible to the UK government not to be exploiting the oil and gas under the North Sea. How on God's green earth can it be right or green that we import such fuels from Norway when Norway extracts its crude oil from the Brent field and then produces the petrol and diesel that we then buy from them and ship across the sea to the UK again?

If you ask me what the government is doing, it is virtual signalling that we are single-handedly saving the planet. We are not; all we are doing is to move as much manufacturing from our shores as is possible, along with jobs, all in the name of being green. When in reality all we are doing is moving the pollution that we would be making here to somewhere remote far from the UK, and thus making their pollution worse than it would be, and at the same time destroying communities here by the removal of well-paid jobs and increasing the unemployment figures.

The fact Brent Crude is known as a sweet oil just means that it is easier and more cost-effective to refine the fossil fuels, petrol, diesel and jet fuel than it is with other crudes, which is a direct result of it having a lower sulphur content, so it is considered to be of a higher quality and thus is more expensive and needs far less energy to refine and less processing to extract the fuels.

So it would kind of suggest that once again we are being sold the facts incorrectly, so in other words, more misconceptions?

Here is a link to the fact that Brent Crude is perfectly capable of producing petrol, diesel and all of the byproducts that crude oil is used for.
Brent Crude Oil: The mesmerising world of this black gold bonanza! | XTB

What is Brent crude? Global oil benchmark explained | CMC Markets

14 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Yes, Brent crude oil is ideal for producing diesel, so with the amount of diesel and petrol currently being used in the UK, it is indefensible to the UK government not to be exploiting the oil and gas under the North Sea. How on God's green earth can it be right or green that we import such fuels from Norway when Norway extracts its crude oil from the Brent field and then produces the petrol and diesel that we then buy from them and ship across the sea to the UK again?

If you ask me what the government is doing, it is virtual signalling that we are single-handedly saving the planet. We are not; all we are doing is to move as much manufacturing from our shores as is possible, along with jobs, all in the name of being green. When in reality all we are doing is moving the pollution that we would be making here to somewhere remote far from the UK, and thus making their pollution worse than it would be, and at the same time destroying communities here by the removal of well-paid jobs and increasing the unemployment figures.

The fact Brent Crude is known as a sweet oil just means that it is easier and more cost-effective to refine the fossil fuels, petrol, diesel and jet fuel than it is with other crudes, which is a direct result of it having a lower sulphur content, so it is considered to be of a higher quality and thus is more expensive and needs far less energy to refine and less processing to extract the fuels.

So it would kind of suggest that once again we are being sold the facts incorrectly, so in other words, more misconceptions?

Here is a link to the fact that Brent Crude is perfectly capable of producing petrol, diesel and all of the byproducts that crude oil is used for.
Brent Crude Oil: The mesmerising world of this black gold bonanza! | XTB

What is Brent crude? Global oil benchmark explained | CMC Markets

As j said anything to do with oil is a massive finan ial rusk and one the last governments and this one have not been willing to take and even the big oil companies are leaving the North Sea leaving it to the smaller companies who are more suited to picking thd bones of the not much over 1B barrels that are left.

Yes there is a strategic dimension as we do need diesel for a few more years until it is replaced entirely as a traction use and kept as it should be just for chemicals etc use.

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

As j said anything to do with oil is a massive finan ial rusk and one the last governments and this one have not been willing to take and even the big oil companies are leaving the North Sea leaving it to the smaller companies who are more suited to picking thd bones of the not much over 1B barrels that are left.

Yes there is a strategic dimension as we do need diesel for a few more years until it is replaced entirely as a traction use and kept as it should be just for chemicals etc use.

With the current global situation and its stability, that will come back to haunt them. If you have natural resources

that are useful, then each country having them has a duty first and foremost to its own citizens, and once they have the stocks that will secure their future for a while, should they release some of the resources to others?

25 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

With the current global situation and its stability, that will come back to haunt them. If you have natural resources

that are useful, then each country having them has a duty first and foremost to its own citizens, and once they have the stocks that will secure their future for a while, should they release some of the resources to others?

Its the cost of extraction from ever deeper water.

The Jackdaw gas field is already ready to go. Gas us much cleaner than crude / diesel etc.

The government know that wrong decesions, as greens, liberals etc would see it, means losing bielections hence a delay in even switching on Jackdaw.

Giving licences to companies to drill deep North Sea is risky with the uk government potentially have to pickup many millions of pounds ilkf clean up costs. If these two bit oil companies suddenly fold when oim drips below $70 a barrel, deckare bankruptcy, then the uk could be on the hook for massive cleanup cost. I think only if the hundreds of millions of clean up is insured ir money put on deposit only then should more rigs be allowed to be out in place.

On the other hand renewabke projects just get better and better. When wind turbines finish their useful life after a few decades the mounts are reused, an even better turbine is out in its place with several times the generating capacity as is currently happening, 1000 ft tall, even better ones. Power which can ve generated for centuries to come. Sokar panels being replaced with ones significantly more efficient and when perovksite panels come with improved will be staggering in good and poor light. Battery tech also improving exponentially with cost dropping like a stone with LFP and Na chemistry.

Compare that to the mess of oil extraction at sea. Miles more expensive than land based rigs. UK must be very careful how it controls any continental shelf oil extraction and ensure full life cycle of costs are obtained upfront.

The oil and gas in the British sectors of the North Sea is not Britain's or the UK,s to have. The licences to explore and to extract have been issued to others. The treasury does tax it though. Norwegian and Israeli companies, and Canadian and Americans own the product. It was Russians and they sold them on because they had to. Natural gas from the North sea sold to the UK and arriving into the UK does not come via pipes owned by the UK. Eg, Centrica / British Gas. And as far as the Forties pipeline for oil pushed along by gas. INEOS sir Jim boy Ratcliffe and Petroineos (PetroChina) own it. And it's damn old. Below FYI & a quick read , best check things out & know what is what as things stand now.

Edited 7 minutes ago7 min by Evolution13