Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the impact of methane flaring on meeting the United Kingdom’s
carbon budgets; and what plans they have to ban this
practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that eliminating routine
methane flaring is a priority. North Sea flaring has halved in
the past four years. We have committed to make every effort to
ensure that routine flaring from oil and gas fields ends as soon
as possible, ahead of the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by
2030 target. Methane emissions are fully accounted for in the
UK’s carbon budgets, and the oil and gas sector is on track to
deliver against this target.
(LD)
My Lords, the figures the Minister has quoted are hotly disputed
by the respected journal Energy & Environmental Science.
However:
“With natural gas prices at historic highs, gas flaring is an
extraordinary waste of economic value … alongside its negative
impacts on climate change and human health.”
Those are not my words but the words of the IEA’s recent
technology deep dive report into flaring. Why do the Government
not just stop this historic madness, follow the Skidmore review
recommendation and ban flaring and venting, other than in an
emergency situation, as Norway did in 1972?
(Con)
These are complicated technological and economic matters. If it
were as simple as the noble Baroness makes out, we would do it,
but we are working to do it as quickly as possible. The figures
that I quoted are from a press release from the North Sea
Transition Authority that was issued today—the authority must
have seen the noble Baroness’s Question. Flaring is down by 50%
since 2018. We must not get this out of proportion; of the UK’s
methane emissions, only 1.6% are from the oil and gas sector,
compared with the likes of the 49% that come from
agriculture.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that there is
a huge amount of methane leakage from landfill sites? How do the
Government propose to deal with the methane escaping from those
sources?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. Some 30% of our emissions are
from the waste sector, which is one of the sectors where we are
doing our best to try to reduce emissions because the gas is
valuable and can be used, and indeed it is trapped on some sites.
We have a system of supporting anaerobic digesters to deal with
the waste; they can produce green gas that is then fed into the
gas main.
(GP)
My Lords, returning to oil and gas methane emissions, the last
time we discussed this at Oral Questions on 22 February I raised
the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan did, that
the figures are heavily disputed and academic research suggests
that methane releases are five times higher than the UK’s
official figures. The Minister said then that the Government
would
“make sure that the information and published figures are as
accurate as possible”.—[Official Report, 22/2/23; col. 1648.]
What progress has been made since then on ensuring the accuracy
and reliability of figures for methane releases from the oil and
gas industry?
(Con)
I have checked figures with officials from the last time the
noble Baroness asked me that question, and I am confident in the
information that I have been given and the UK statistics. The
noble Baroness shakes her head, but the figures are probably more
reliable than some of her scientists.
(Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government are
doing to encourage more use of landfill gas for domestic and
commercial energy?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, and I touched on it in an
earlier answer. We want to try to trap as much of this gas as
possible because it is a valuable resource. As I mentioned, the
green gas support scheme is a system that uses a gas levy to
support anaerobic digesters across the country to take some of
the waste food and organic matter that can be turned into useful
gas that is fed into the gas main.
(Lab)
My Lords, methane flaring accounts for approximately 145 billion
cubic metres of gas per year globally, contributing to the
overall methane emissions that cause 25% of global heating today.
We can dispute the studies; indeed, I shall reference the study
in the journal Science that came out last week which found that
methane flaring is responsible for five times more methane
entering the atmosphere than previously thought. I am quite taken
aback by the complacency here. Does it not at least warrant
further consideration if studies are disputing the evidence that
the Minister has cited today? Bearing that in mind, and given the
worries about the recent surge that have been highlighted, what
progress is being made on farming and landfill, as has been
mentioned? I do not think we have had the detail. When can we
expect the Government to produce the latest, much-promised plan
to achieve all targets and net zero?
(Con)
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions there. We can
argue about the figures but we can all agree that it is something
that we want to eliminate as quickly as possible. We have a
target to get rid of all flaring emissions by 2030, as I
mentioned in earlier answers, but let us not get this out of
proportion. These are 1.6% of our emissions, which we should
eliminate as quickly as possible, but, as the noble Baroness
mentioned, the bigger sectors to tackle are agriculture and
waste, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
(LD)
My Lords, in the last four months the sky over Hampshire and the
Isle of Wight has been lit up twice by huge emergency flaring
from the Fawley refinery. What release of methane was involved in
these incidents? What steps are being taken to prevent more such
episodes?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not familiar with
that incident, but I will speak to officials when I get back to
the department.
(LD)
My Lords, will the Minister recommend to us how we should
pronounce the acronym for his new department?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. The finest minds in the
Civil Service have been devoted to deciding the acronym for the
new department. “Deznez” seems to be the favourite, though I
should say that my Secretary of State rightly points out that no
one has any idea what all these acronyms stand for so we should
use its full title, which is the Department for Energy Security
and Net Zero.
(LD)
In answer to my noble friend’s Question, the Minister said that
there are reasons why this is technically difficult. It would
help noble Lords if the Minister could explain what those
technical difficulties are. I can understand it when new wells
are being tested, but this is established production over the
long term. What exactly are the technical difficulties?
(Con)
I am happy to arrange a briefing with officials for the noble
Lord if he would like, but the technical difficulties are, first,
technological, in that it requires a lot of new infrastructure
and pipework to be installed, and some of the facilities that
flare are oil platforms that do not have facilities to pipe the
gas to shore. Secondly, there are huge economic costs associated
with it; obviously, some of the infrastructure goes back to the
1970s.
(Con)
My Lords, would this problem not be greatly reduced if we put
more emphasis on tidal energy?
(Con)
My noble friend is dogged in his determination to get tidal on
the agenda. I agree with him that we need more renewable energy,
and we have allocated a number of CfD contracts to different
forms of tidal energy.
(CB)
My Lords, on a slightly different tack, has the Minister’s
department made any assessment yet, or will it do so, of the
claims we have recently seen in the press about new technology
for carbon capture and storage at sea? Is that likely to be a
game-changer or has it been overhyped?
(Con)
The noble and gallant Lord deserves a longer answer than I have
time for. CCUS is emerging technology. We have a huge programme
of support and will be making announcements shortly about the
track 1 cluster, to use the jargon, of some of the schemes that
will be supported. There are a number of innovative schemes
around the UK that deserve our backing.
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that historically the capture
of dangerous gases of this sort has been by our peat bogs? The
protection of peat, particularly in the Pennine area, is crucial
to this. What steps will the new department take to ensure that
we can continue to protect those areas?
(Con)
The short answer is it is not the responsibility of DESNZ but of
Defra in terms of environmental protection, but I will pass on
the noble Lord’s comments.
(GP)
My Lords, the Minister might like to take this opportunity to
withdraw the slur that he made in his answer to me against
scientists from the Energy Institute at Colorado State
University, the department of civil and environmental engineering
at Princeton University, and the Princeton School of Public and
International Affairs, whose work was published in the journal
Energy & Environmental Science. Does the Minister agree that
that is a reputable source?
(Con)
People are always quoting various scientists at me, and for one
opinion there are others. I am confident in the figures that the
UK uses for our emissions.
