Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Oxburgh and Lord Howell of Guildford
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken the time to give us a very interesting and rewarding debate this afternoon. I cannot possibly reply to all the comments that have been made and will refrain from discussing climate change, even though I would like to do so with certain noble Lords—perhaps we will do that in private.
Quite a number of noble Lords have made Second Reading points this afternoon rather than points which relate to this particular amendment. Be that as it may, it is worth commenting on shale gas, which has come up several times. It is worth pointing out that shale gas is about the most expensive gas to exploit that we know about on the face of the earth. You have to use a whole range of technologies which are mostly at the top of, or almost beyond, the range of conventional gas exploitation. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is absolutely right when he says—or implies—that gas is the least transportable of the fossil fuels. If you get your shale gas from abroad, you pay a premium of something close to $2 or $3. The real advantage of shale gas is to those who have it themselves and can put it straight into their national grid. If, in due course, we can do that, that will certainly be a help to the national economy. However, I do not see anything in this Bill that actually inhibits the future use of shale gas.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is an enormous expert on this but is he talking about just shale gas itself or about hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies? The latter, of course, release all sorts of other resources as well, including oil, tight oil and other forms of offshore gas, which are going to be, by all current assessments and estimates, in very plentiful supply. The whole world will want to sell us this gas.
Lord Oxburgh
I was restricting my comments to shale gas, and in the interests of time I will continue to do so. However, there are other possibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested.
The consensus view in the industry is that the price of shale gas in America, where there was effectively a bounce downwards associated with transient overproduction, will come back up to something like $7 from the $8 that it was previously. That will reflect the costs of extraction, with a modest premium for those who do it. The broader view is that shale gas will mean that there is more gas to go round. The result of its abundance will probably be that gas prices do not rise nearly as much as they would have done in its absence. However, I do not think that we can look forward to a great price reduction.
A number of noble Lords commented on technology. The first thing to recognise is that in the sorts of technology about which we are talking, the characteristic time between the inspiration of a new technology and its coming into use is about 20 years. That is the timescale in which we have to think of new technologies. There are two technologies that will transform the energy scene in this country and worldwide. The first is cheap and readily applicable carbon capture and storage, which we do not have yet. However, there is a range of possibilities in that area. I suspect that this is what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was referring to in his comments. Cheap carbon capture and storage, applied to gas, would be a transformative change. The other transformative change would be the ability to store energy. That would transform the role of our intermittent renewables, which at the moment have to be managed effectively on the grid.
To pick up a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the price of energy and its security of supply are fundamental to the community and to the country as a whole. Politically, they are very important. Fundamentally, what the Government’s approach offers is somewhat higher prices than we would have preferred in the short term, but probably much more stable prices—and lower global prices—in the medium and longer term. It is a matter of whether we want jam today or jam tomorrow. The Government have sensibly decided that jam tomorrow is what a responsible Government should work for.
In conclusion, the main argument against our amendment has been Cornford’s principle of unripe time. If we defer this for another two years, we will be having exactly the same argument, with exactly the same reasons for procrastination presented. There is ample scope within the Bill—and, as I pointed out, within the Climate Change Act—for the Government to change. I will draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 2(1) and (2) of the Bill, which state:
“The following matters must be taken into account by the Secretary of State in setting or amending a decarbonisation target range … scientific knowledge about climate change … technology relevant to the generation and storage of electricity”,
and so on. In other words, the powers to change this are there. For example, if, between 2014 and 2017, new technologies miraculously shot onto the scene—and I believe, for the reasons I have given, that that is very unlikely—it would be possible for the Government to change their position.
In conclusion, I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and one or two others who effectively implied that this amendment was otiose because investors do not care. However, I have learnt, not through a miracle of technology but through a note handed to me during this debate, that the chairman of a £5.5 billion investment fund has said, “I think that this amendment is very important to us”. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.