News Feeds

A company established by former Macquarie bankers is starting big - with a massive battery positioned to support a swathe of new generation projects.

The post Former Macquarie bankers plan one of Australia’s biggest six-hour batteries with 4,800 MWh of storage appeared first on Renew Economy.

The post What PJM States Can Do to Ensure Affordable, Reliable Electricity During the Data Center Boom appeared first on RMI.

UK Oil & Gas plc announced this morning it has submitted a revised planning application for its Horse Hill site , near Redhill, in Surrey.

The company said the retrospective application seeks to reinstate consent for oil production.

Horse Hill, Surrey, England. January 2026. Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize

Planning permission for the Horse Hill site, now UKOG’s only hydrocarbon asset, was quashed by a landmark climate judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, at the Supreme Court in June 2024.

The court ruled that the planning permission granted by Surrey County Council in 2019 was unlawful. The judgement said the permission failed to take into account the climate impact of burning oil from the site.

Sarah Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group, was last month awarded the leading international award, the Goldman Environmental Prize.

The Weald Action Group said this morning:

“This is an appalling but predictable move by UKOG. After repeatedly claiming they were transitioning away from fossil fuels, they have now submitted plans to Surrey County Council to restart oil production at Horse Hill, showing that they are still relying on this site as a financial lifeline.

“There is simply no room left in the rapidly dwindling global carbon budget for any more fossil fuel developments.  Instead, the site should be urgently decommissioned and fully restored. Given their disastrous financial position, with cash reserves reported at just £32,000, this application appears to be a way by which UKOG can further delay meeting these costly obligations.

“Enough is enough, this cannot be allowed to drag on any longer, and this application must be rejected.”

Immediately after the Supreme Court judgement, UKOG said it was working to reinstate planning permission.

This required a revised application with information on the carbon emissions from combustion, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions.

Surrey County Council reported in November 2024 it was waiting for this information.

Since then, UKOG has promised the details but repeatedly delayed submission.

At the time of writing, the new application was not listed on the county council planning register.

When the application has been validated, a public consultation is expected on the new information.

In a statement today, UKOG said:

“The Company has worked closely with its planning advisors and SCC to prepare the revised planning submission, which includes updated ecology, environmental and technical baseline studies and an assessment of downstream emissions in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.

“A successful planning outcome would permit stable production at Horse Hill to resume, generating valuable revenues which would help support the Company’s ongoing transition to its announced clean energy projects in Dorset and Yorkshire.”

UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“This retrospective planning submission seeks to address the Supreme Court’s ruling on SCC’s 2019 Horse Hill planning consent in a thorough and transparent manner. Horse Hill remains a valuable UK onshore asset and, subject to planning consent, has the potential to generate revenues that can be responsibly reinvested to support the Company’s strategic transition towards hydrogen storage and other clean energy initiatives.

“The Company continues to pursue a balanced approach, managing its legacy oil and gas assets while actively investing in the UK’s energy transition and clean power future.”

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) previously announced production had voluntarily ceased in October 2024.

More reaction

The local MP, Chris Coghlan (Lib Dem)

said:

“Last year I urged the government and Surrey County Council to ensure Horse Hill is restored to woodland. It’s no surprise that UKOG has now submitted a retrospective planning application, but with the company’s financial track record, I am worried they will not be able to deliver proper site restoration. Any decision by Surrey County Council must recognise residents’ concerns and guarantee that the site is fully returned to woodland.”

Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council said in a statement:

“In 2024, Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council supported local resident Sarah Finch in her ground-breaking legal challenge against Surrey County Council’s decision to extend planning permission for the oil drilling site at Horse Hill which is in our parish. Councillors recognised Sarah’s argument that the Environmental Impact Assessment failed to include the effects of emissions released from burning the extracted oil, assessing only emissions from the development itself.

“What began as a local campaign evolved into a five-year legal battle that climbed through the courts, culminating in a historic ruling by the UK Supreme Court in June 2024 and, crucially, the planning permission being overturned. The Parish Council was delighted to see Sarah Finch and her colleagues at the Weald Action Group recently being awarded the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize for Europe. Sarah’s landmark legal victory is already reshaping climate accountability across the UK and beyond.

“In August 2025, we also wrote to Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, expressing concern as to who will be responsible for restoration of the Horse Hill oil site in the event the UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) entered formal insolvency.

“The Parish Council has been advised on 5 May 2026 that UKOG will be submitting a retrospective planning application for reinstatement of production consent at the Horse Hill site. Once formally notified, Councillors will review all the new planning documents and make representation on the application on their merits including consideration of protection to our Green Belt and the local environment.”

• UKOG also announced today the month-long suspension of its shares had been lifted. Trading was suspended after the company missed the stock market deadline for publishing its accounts. The accounts, due to be published at the end of March 2026, were released this morning (5 May 2026). DrillOrDrop has reported on the contents of the accounts.

Nations are “back on track” to adopt a framework for curbing global shipping emissions, following the latest International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) meeting in London, UK.

The proposed “net-zero framework” had been expected to be approved by countries at the IMO towards the end of 2025.

Instead, the Trump administration was accused of “bully-boy” tactics as the US led a concerted effort to reject the framework, leading to its approval being delayed.

Since then, the US, other fossil-fuel producers and some industry groups have called for the framework to be stripped of its carbon-pricing mechanism, or abandoned entirely.

At the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC84) meeting in London, UK, last week, nations tried once again to reach an agreement on the framework.

Opponents said they were trying to seek consensus, but supporters, such as Brazil, the EU and Pacific islands, pointed out the framework was already a “careful balance of interests”.

Liberia and Panama – “flag states” for a third of the world’s commercial shipping – led a counter-proposal, alongside Argentina, which effectively cut carbon pricing from the framework.

Ultimately, however, the meeting ended with a reconfirmation that delegations are committed to rebuilding consensus on global shipping emissions. 

The framework survived the negotiations and the committee will now try to adopt it at its December 2026 meeting.

Below, Carbon Brief explains why the framework has proved so contentious, who the major players have been and what the final outcome was at the latest IMO meeting.

• Why was the net-zero framework delayed last year?
• Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?
• What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?
• What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?
• What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?

Why was the net-zero framework delayed last year?

In April 2025, nations at the IMO had agreed on a “net-zero framework” at their MEPC83 meeting in London, despite the US withdrawing halfway through.

Later that year, in October 2025, they failed to formally adopt the framework after a fraught “extraordinary session” that saw US negotiators accused of “bully-boy tactics”.

(The MEPC usually meets once a year, but additional meetings or intersessionals can be added to deal with an “extraordinary event or critical maritime environmental crisis”. The October session was organised specifically to consider the adoption of the framework and other draft amendments.)

The framework was meant to be a practical set of measures to achieve the global net-zero target for shipping, agreed at the IMO in 2023. The target is significant, as international shipping is responsible for more than 2% of emissions and is not covered by the Paris Agreement.

Following a week of negotiations at the April 2025 meeting, the remaining nations had voted on approving a compromise proposal for an emissions levy – effectively a carbon tax on global shipping – and a credit-trading system. 

A majority of nations had agreed to this framework that would have set a lower emissions-intensity reduction target of 4% in 2028, rising to 30% in 2035. It had also included an upper target that would have increased from 17% in 2028 to 43% in 2035.

Ships that failed to lower their emissions intensity in line with these limits would have needed to purchase “remedial units” for $380 per “tier two” unit. This would have fed into a new IMO “net-zero fund”. 

Those who met the lower target, but fell short of the more difficult upper target, would have had to pay into the IMO fund, but at the lower rate of $100 per “tier one” unit.

The number of compliant ships had been expected to grow under this framework, reducing the number of vessels reliant on buying units and helping to reduce emissions intensity by over 40%, as the chart below shows. 

Reduction in emissions intensity of shipping fuel compared to 2008 reference year, showing percentage made up of tier two (red), tier one (pale red) and compliant emissions (grey). Source: IMO.

The purchase of units to comply with the rules had been expected to raise $10-15bn annually in the initial years of the fund, as well as help with the development of zero and near-zero (ZNZ) greenhouse gas fuels and energy sources, according to thinktank IDDRI. 

In turn, the fund would have been used to support developing countries to decarbonise shipping.

A clear majority of 80% of the eligible voters – not including those who abstained or the US – approved the framework at the April 2025 meeting.  

The 63 countries that voted in favour included the EU, China, India and Brazil, while those that voted against included major fossil-fuel producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 

Following this “landmark” agreement, countries had then been expected to formally adopt the framework at the next MEPC session in October 2025. 

However, the meeting proved challenging. The US “unequivocally rejected” the proposal and lobbied extensively against adoption, including by threatening governments, individual diplomats and shipping companies with sanctions, visa restrictions, tariffs and port fees.

During the October meeting, the US and its allies pushed for a shift from a “tacit” approval system for the net-zero framework to one that would require explicit acceptance by governments. This would mean it would only come into force if, six months later, two-thirds of nations actively accepted the deal, Climate Home News explained at the time. 

Negotiations continued throughout the week before Saudi Arabia called to adjourn the meeting, a move that was passed after it was backed by 57 countries. 

As such, the decision on the adoption of the net-zero framework was pushed back by a year.

Among the 63 countries that supported the IMO net-zero framework at MEPC83 in April 2025, 15 supported the adjournment and 10 abstained – showing that some nations that had previously supported the framework had softened on the deal, following lobbying by the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies.

Going into the April 2026 MEPC84 meeting, it was clear that agreement on the framework would not be straightforward. A report ahead of the meeting from University College London (UCL) noted: 

“The level of support is noticeably weaker than in April [2025] and likely reflects the effectiveness and efforts made by sides supporting or opposing the net-zero framework over the intervening period.”

In the week ahead of the MEPC84, US IMO delegation lead Wayne Arguin told a meeting that there was a “clear, strong and sizable bloc of countries opposed to the [net-zero framework]” and “no prospect of achieving consensus”, according to Politico. 

As the meeting kicked off on 27 April 2026, IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez called on parties to engage in “engage in constructive and pragmatic exchanges”. 

Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?

A coalition of countries, including the US, Saudi Arabia and various fossil-fuel producers, strongly oppose the IMO net-zero framework that was agreed last year.

They were supported by a wider group of industry bodies and major flag states – countries where many ships are registered – which were instrumental in advancing “alternative frameworks” at the latest meeting. (See: What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?)

Documents submitted ahead of the April 2026 meeting laid out the basis for this opposition, with the US criticising the net-zero framework’s “significant shortcomings”, concluding:

“The most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the IMO net-zero framework entirely.”

More nuance came in a statement from a group of primarily large fossil-fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Algeria, which was also backed by the US.

It stressed the need for “alternative” frameworks, with an emphasis on achieving consensus, as well as “practicability, equity and trust”. In practice, this meant a system without any carbon pricing, “top-down restrictions” or “international penalties”.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

Opposing countries said any outcome should be “technology-neutral”, meaning it should not disadvantage specific fuels, potentially including liquified natural gas (LNG) and other fossil fuels.

These nations also stressed what they claimed were the potential impact of additional net-zero costs on “food and energy security”.

Much of their criticism was based on supposed economic harm that the net-zero framework would cause, particularly in developing countries.

These arguments purported to be about fairness for these countries. Yet some opponents of the framework were also calling for the IMO fund to be abandoned.

If this IMO fund were lost, then developing countries could lose out on a potential source of support for their own maritime decarbonisation, as well as potentially their broader energy transitions.

As well as supporting the fossil-fuel producers’ call for “alternative frameworks”, the UAE filed its own submission questioning the legitimacy of the IMO in establishing a new fund. 

The US submission to the IMO stated that the fund would provide “pennies on the dollar compared to the economic hardship” brought about by the framework overall. 

US delegates distributed flyers at the IMO meeting, emphasising the financial burden they claimed the framework would place on developing countries. While low-carbon shipping will come with substantial costs, analysts said the US figures were “not credible”.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

Campaigners accused the US of “pretending to care about other countries’ economies”, pointing out that the energy crisis – triggered by the US-led war on Iran – is costing the shipping industry billions. 

Moreover, they stated that the Trump administration’s new port entry fees would be a far greater financial burden for the global shipping industry than the mooted net-zero rules. 

Analysis by UCL shipping researchers ahead of MEPC84 concluded that the Trump administration would potentially be less able to exert “soft power and influence” at the talks than last year. Additionally, it pointed to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the US’s capacity to impose punitive tariffs. 

In practice, the US was less vocal at the talks, choosing to support alternative framework ideas proposed by other IMO members.

What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?

There were two main alternatives to the net-zero framework considered at MEPC84. 

Japan suggested some ideas as a “possible basis for discussion”, which included removing the need for ships to pay into an IMO fund when they fail to meet emissions targets. 

It also suggested simply relaxing the emissions targets, in order to make them easier for shipping companies to meet.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }

The second – and more significant – counter-proposal to the net-zero framework was not submitted by the US or its fossil-fuel producer allies. 

Instead, it came from Liberia, Panama and Argentina, three countries that have strong political and historical ties with the US.

This was particularly notable given Liberia and Panama’s status as the top two “flags of convenience”, as shown in the chart below. A third of the world’s commercial shipping is registered in these small states, giving them disproportionate significance within the talks.

Deadweight tonnage of the ten largest merchant fleets in 2025 by flag of registration, million tonnes. Source: UNCTAD.

Their proposal, offered in the spirit of “consensus‑building”, said that only fuels already considered “commercially viable” should be included in the IMO’s carbon-intensity targets. 

The Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal was dismissed by observers as “business-as-usual”, as it removes incentives to develop clean fuels, any substantial means of enforcement and opportunities to raise funds to help developing countries.

Delaine McCullough, director of the shipping programme at the Ocean Conservancy, tells Carbon Brief:

“By removing the mandatory greenhouse gas price, you take away the ability to provide any kind of rewards or other incentives, and you also take away the regulatory incentive, so you just end up where we are today.”

This was the proposal that the net-zero framework’s most prominent opponents, including the US and the Gulf states, rallied around at MEPC84. 

Among those also backing the idea during the talks were some developing countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, that also said they wanted the IMO outcome to provide them with financial support. 

This came in spite of the proposal stating there should be “no establishment of an IMO fund”. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a small-island state delegate tells Carbon Brief: 

“Many countries that support the Liberia-Panama-Argentina submission also seek support for transition, capacity-building and mitigation of negative impacts. This support will not be available if [that] approach is taken.”

Some delegates questioned the decision by Liberia and Panama to lead this pushback against the net-zero framework. Both nations had previously supported an emissions levy on shipping, which would have been far more ambitious than the framework they now oppose. 

Observers noted ties between nations that opposed the framework and parts of the shipping sector – including US-based interests and LNG assets.

Among the industry voices arguing strongly against the net-zero framework have been the American Bureau of Shipping and a group of international shipping companies and registries – including the national registries of Liberia and Panama.

The latter group voiced “significant concerns” and called for “alternative proposals”. Rather than a domestic entity, the Liberian registry that issued this statement is a privately owned US company.

Reflecting on these issues, Prof Tristan Smith, an energy and transport expert at UCL, wrote on LinkedIn:

“Privately owned registries have leverage over their host governments because one angry shipowner’s personal wealth is more than the flag state’s GDP and governments of low-income countries can’t easily take risks with even small volume revenues.”

Major Greek shipowners, including some with US-linked LNG interests, also opposed the net-zero framework, citing the “absence of support from major and influential states representing a significant share of global tonnage”.

Greece itself had reportedly pushed back against the framework behind the scenes, despite the EU’s public, unified position of support.

What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?

There were many vocal supporters of the net-zero framework at MEPC84, including a broad range of developed and developing countries. 

Among them were the EU, Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, Pacific island states, Australia and the UK.

Having supported the net-zero framework last April, but voted to postpone its adoption in October, China expressed support for a carbon-pricing system and an IMO fund in a technical submission issued ahead of MEPC84.

The major shipping nation had remained quiet during the US-Saudi disruption in October last year, so its submission was viewed as a positive for backers of the framework.

Colombia, which was simultaneously hosting a global conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, also emerged as a supporter of the net-zero framework.

There has also been support from some sections of the shipping industry, including a large coalition of ports, logistics companies and clean-fuel providers. 

Supportive nations pointed out that the net-zero framework was the result of years of talks and already represented what Pacific island states called a “fragile compromise”. They framed it as the “only politically viable option” for hitting the IMO’s net-zero goal.

Pacific islands and around 50 other nations had originally called for a universal carbon levy on shipping. Ultimately, they were forced to accept the net-zero framework as a compromise, but Pacific islands said they would revert to their call for a levy if they felt the framework was being “watered down”.  

The demand for a levy was strongly opposed by numerous countries, including some of the current framework’s supporters, such as Brazil and Australia.

In a bid to revive the net-zero framework, a submission by Brazil sought to “dispel any possible potential misunderstandings”, stressing that the approach is “flexible” and “should not be mistaken for a ‘global tax’”.

For example, Brazil notes that the framework “does not exclude any fuels” and that even existing “bunker” fuels and LNG could be used, as long as carbon intensity targets are met. (Ships could, for example, use carbon capture and storage to meet the goals.)

Michael Mbaru, a low-carbon shipping expert for the Kenya climate special envoy, told a briefing ahead of the conference that the net-zero framework was in developing countries’ interests: 

“If the global package unravels, pressure grows for more regional and unilateral measures instead, and this is particularly difficult for African and other developing countries, because fragmented regulation raises compliance, complexity [and] transaction costs.”

In response to the Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal that opponents of the framework had coalesced around, the Solomon Islands pointed out that, in seeking “consensus”, this group was ignoring the numerous parties that wanted more ambition, rather than less. It stated in a submission:

“There is no reason to expect that a new proposal, that differs from the IMO net-zero framework, would find a majority, much less a consensus.”

Nevertheless, supporters of the net-zero framework also acknowledged that there were some areas where greater clarity might help countries to finalise the details.

These areas include clarifying technical considerations such as: how fuel intensity is calculated; addressing the potential impacts of net-zero rules on food security; the governance of the IMO fund; and regulation of sustainable fuel certification schemes.

Given this, there was broad support for more discussions at an extra “intersessional” meeting later this year, in order to hash out these final details before attempting to approve the net-zero framework once more.

What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?

Ultimately, the IMO’s net-zero framework remains on the table and will now be negotiated further in the autumn, ahead of the next MEPC session in December 2026. 

The decision, as well as the general willingness to move forward noted by numerous observers, was broadly welcomed. IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez said:

“We are back on track, but we have to rebuild trust. I encourage you to maintain this momentum through your intersessional work and to prepare submissions that can bring the membership together.”

MO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez speaking at the Marine Environment Protection Committee on 27 April 2026 at IMO Headquarters in London. Credit: IMO / Flickr

Over the week of negotiations, nearly 100 delegations took to the floor to voice their opinions on the adoption of the net-zero framework. 

As well as discussion of the previously proposed net-zero framework, Argentina and Japan put forward alternative proposals, although neither gathered significant support. 

The Argentinian proposal was substantially different from the net-zero framework and did not include either a greenhouse gas price or a fund. It saw support from just 24 member states and, even when combined with the Japanese proposal to form a “technical-only” compromise, it was unable to gain a majority. 

According to the UCL Shipping and Oceans Research group, despite numerous efforts to put forward options that would be more acceptable to the US and Saudi positions – such as technical-only proposals – these failed to find “viable ways forward”. 

This is important, as normally within the IMO, when two proposals have similar levels of support such as this, they can be merged or a compromise found. 

On the final day of negotiations, countries agreed to take forward the original net-zero framework, which was agreed in principle back in April 2025.  

More than half of the nations at the IMO meeting were in favour of it, including members such the EU, Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Tuvalu and others. They accepted the framework, as originally agreed, as the basis for further work.

The countries that supported it remain largely unchanged from previous meetings, but there was additional support. 

Most of the supporters had opposed the adjournment at the IMO session in October, which pushed the adoption of the net-zero framework back. But five additional countries that had supported adjournment switched sides, along with 10 countries that had not taken a side, now clearly supporting the framework, according to UCL. 

Others pushed back against the net-zero framework and called for reopening it for substantial changes. This included the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Liberia and others, predominantly oil and gas exporters. 

According to UCL, two countries flipped from opposing adjournment to opposing the framework. UCL notes that “this indicates the fluidity of a portion of the positions and the sustained uncertainty around adoption later this year”.

The figure below shows supporters of the net-zero framework or other options at the latest meeting, colour-coded according to their position on the adjournment vote in October 2025.

Position on the next steps for the net-zero framework at the IMO’s latest meeting in April 2026. Credit: UCL

The net-zero framework was, ultimately, the only option in the final outcome text. While it has “survived”, “survival is not a victory and we cannot end up in a cycle of open-ended negotiations”, Em Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, tells Carbon Brief. They add: 

“We must now look forward to moving towards adoption of the framework later this year in a way that maintains urgency and ambition, and delivers justice and equity for countries on the frontlines of climate impacts.”

The IMO committee agreed to establish an intersessional working group to resolve a number of outstanding concerns and “drive broader convergence on a global measure” ahead of the next MEPC meeting. 

Member states will be able to submit new amendments and adjustments to the draft net-zero framework, to complement those already approved.

The two intersessional meetings will take place in September and November, ahead of MEPC85 in December. 

Christiaan De Beukelaer, senior lecturer in culture and climate at the University of Melbourne, tells Carbon Brief: 

“The ship is mostly built, though it’s obvious that more work needs doing on its interior. Right now, some are trying to finish the build while others are trying to scuttle it.”

Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels

International policy

|

30.04.26

Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’

International policy

|

20.04.26

Q&A: What Magyar’s defeat of Orbán in Hungary means for climate and energy

International policy

|

17.04.26

Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis

International policy

|

08.04.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_b8d3e756460548f84951311d79016a99 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: How countries got the global ‘net-zero’ shipping deal ‘back on track’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Joe Redmayne reflects on the role of trades councils during the 1926 general strike

The post Their hour of glory: Trades councils and the 1926 general strike appeared first on Red Pepper.

Hoo boy. The stupid and evil, somehow accelerating, burn. America's so-called leader, the "Worst That Has Ever Drawn Breath," manifests ever more cognitive dissonance on steroids. Absurd, addled, vindictive, looming above "a circus of death and chaos," he commits war crimes, guts voting rights, plots devastation, abases decency, murders mercy, yet whines about mean jokes. But as America reels, Banksy, Bruce, Platner and others increasingly declare, "We are not fucking doing this anymore."

Amidst what the head of Amnesty International calls "the year of the predators," humanity itself is under attack, most notably by our ludicrous narcissist and his "casual, bewildering cruelty." Despite his foolishness, Nesrine Malik writes, "This is what evil looks like": See history's portrayals of Hitler - "the startling insignificance of this man who has set the world agog" - and Mussolini, "that funny man, that consummate buffoon." Trump's "farcical puniness," Malik notes, is "a projection onto the world, not of large intent, but of smallness and fear...The consequences of his violence are secondary to the validation that comes from inflicting it (to) erase his terror of humiliation (and) feed his sociopathic appetite for escalation." Thus can deeply silly still equal dangerous.

Daily, the large and small atrocities are both, albeit without the resonance of the label "fascist" only because he lacks the wit, intent and coherence it requires. The war in Iran veers on: "Another day, another pivot. Trump flails." It's won, not, won but not by enough, it's not a war, we made a deal, we don't want a deal, talks are going well, we don't wanna talk, Iran struck a school full of young girls, or if we did it's Obama's fault. Give me ballroom or give me death: The solution to gun violence that kills 12 children a day, wounds 32 more and has affected over 390,000 kids since Columbine - is to build one rich white guy who's never expressed any grief over any of them a gilded bunker of his own. The way to keep more people safe is to kill as many as possible, including by firing squad.

Also, Bill Maher, Hakeem Jeffries, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are low IQ losers, James Comey tried to kill and "inflict bodily harm on" him with "aggravated beachy seashell pictures," he's so "young, vital, vibrant" he could've joined the Artemis II astronauts easy like he aced his three screening tests for dementia - "A lion, a giraffe, a bear, and a shark. Which one is the bear?" - which the Villages audience def couldn't do, ditto sketchy Harvard Law graduate Hussein Obama. America's response to his musing what we'd do if a con man moron turned up - "How do you get to be president and you're stupid?": "That would suck - we'd probably have unprovoked wars, high gas prices and all our allies would hate us," "He's so close to getting it," "The Irony Meter is dead after spontaneously combusting," and "You're a fucking moron." Also, so grotesquely weird.

Latest bonkers Jesus/doctor post with an umbilical-cord-eating eagle. Nothing to see here.Image from Truth Social

Meanwhile, the Orwellian rules for what you can/can’t see/say keep spooling out, lies sold as half-truths to justify a brazen, racist, whitewashing of both present and past under the shameless moniker of content “inappropriately disparaging Americans past or living,” but always white. Among dozens of changes at our National Parks, gone are signs about the contributions of Native Americans and women, warnings about climate change "not grounded in real science," evidence of Founding Fathers owning slaves and explorers' atrocities against Native tribes. But you do get Trump's loathsome mug plastered on park passes, like on our money, buildings, passports ad nauseum. Happily, fighting back for years have been patriots like the Resistance Rangers, the Alt National Park Service and whatever genius slapped these "Sex Offender" flyers across D.C.'s parks.

Hence incrementally, far too slowly but feeding vital hope and our frayed spirits, the flip side of our grim absurdist timeline begins to emerge as Trump and his monstrous clowns flail, fail, dig their own dank holes. So many horrors should have sparked it -Gaza, ICE, USAID, the boundless greed, cruelty, stupidity. Instead, prices did it, a non-stop, staggering incompetence that saw people being screwed once too often and lied to about one too many senseless wars. Last week, Banksy registered his own anti-imperialist protest in a middle-of-the-night dropping into the heart of ceremonial London a large statue mocking such Blind Patriotism. Mirroring the classical style of surrounding monuments celebrating the British Empire's inglorious colonial past, he presents a suited man, his flag flying into his face, one foot poised to step off into his own demise. Much like, you know.

Banksy's new Blind Nationalism art work amidst London's colonial monumentsImage from Banksy Instagram page

Kicking off his Land of Hope and Dreams American tour several weeks ago, Bruce Springsteen offered his own fiery rebuttal to "a corrupt, incompetent, racist, reckless and treasonous administration," which drew roars from a huge first night crowd in Minneapolis. Equal parts celebration and call to action, The Boss insisted, "This is still America, and - shades of the Big Lebowski, "this will not stand." Summoning "the righteous power of art, music and rock and roll in dangerous times," he asked the crowd to "join with us in choosing hope over fear, democracy over authoritarianism, the rule of law over lawlessness, ethics over unbridled corruption, resistance over complacency, unity over division, and peace over....(lights come up to segue into) "WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'!" complete with Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello shredding a solo. A righteous, dynamic pair.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

In contrast, standing grotesque and slumped-shouldered in a dingy, empty corner, is the small, mad man-child who spent Monday bellowing to a weary world that Iran will be "blown off the face of the Earth" if it targets U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which his inane recklessness closed in the first place. Online, in "the most desperate shit" to ever make its demonic way from the White House, a juvenile lackey posted him saying, "Winning it" on a loop for over 60 minutes, which still didn't make it so. The text read, "Can't stop, won't stop." Please fucking do. A horrified America: "This is a real tweet from a real account about a real man who leads a real country." Kyle Kulinski, on "the war criminal of all war criminals" who makes genocidal threats and bleats about insults: “We are not fucking doing this anymore. You don't get to say shit."

Still, one Tom Wellborn says it best in, “A Eulogy for the Worst That Has Ever Drawn Breath,” subtitled “Being a Complete and Unflinching Account of the Most Loathsome Specimen Ever to Consume Resources, Occupy Space, and Insult the Patience of a Universe That Deserved So Much Better." "There are villains, and then there are monsters, and then there are creatures so cosmically, transcendently... terrible that language itself recoils," he begins. "Grammar buckles. Syntax weeps...He is this thing. He is the thing past the thing past the thing. He is the sub-basement of the human condition, the moldy crawlspace beneath that sub-basement, and the writhing centipede beneath that."

"He has no morals. Not a single one. Not even the bad morals that at least imply a moral framework: the corrupt cop who loves his dog, the mob boss who goes to church. No. He exists in a morality vacuum so total that ethicists have proposed naming it after him...A being entirely without moral content. Not evil, because evil requires intention. Simply absent of the entire apparatus...A moral negative space shaped vaguely like a man...He has no empathy....like a raisin...He is incapable of the most basic social theater that even sociopaths manage....He takes without asking. He takes everything without asking. He takes things that aren’t takeable...The principle being: I can....He is stupid in a way that is almost majestic...His stupidity (is) total. Unified....He has been wrong about everything, always, without exception..."

"He is callous the way concrete is callous: not through malice, not through choice, but through an utter material inability to register (another) person’s pain...You could show him the face of grief, and he would wonder aloud if there was parking nearby...He is vicious the way a blunt instrument is vicious: through sheer, undirected force, through the momentum of his own awfulness...He is smelted fury with no purpose, unforged, unbent, uselessly molten....(He is) a statistical outlier so extreme that evolution seems to be embarrassed by him, a glitch in the long project of civilization...And the most horrifying part...He will never know any of this. He will never know what he is." Name it, damn it, take it down. Maine's Graham Platner hopes to help do that. We wish him well.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Boletínes periódicos de TGA Suscribirse Puedes sucribirse en la página página de RiseUp. Última entrega * TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #19: Educación y aprendizaje II (Abril de 2026) Anteriores (en español) * [TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #05] Poder y Democracia * [TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #06] Cambio Climático y Alternativas * TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #07 Para Gustavo Esteva (1936-2022), in memoriam

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Cuando los ríos hablan: un tejido narrativo de las vías fluviales de una región Por Talking Wings

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Yutsilal Bahlumilal Pluriversidad: Co-creación de alternativas agro-eco-visuales Por Xochitl Leyva Solano y Axel Köhler

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) Hacia una era postcrecimiento Por Robert Wanalo y Natalie Holmes El Post Growth Institute (PGI) es una organización internacional sin fines de lucro que lidera la transición hacia un mundo en el que las personas, las empresas y la naturaleza prosperen juntas dentro de los límites ecológicos. Trabajamos de manera colaborativa para desarrollar…

FIXME Esta página no está completamente traducida, aún. Por favor, contribuye a su traducción. (Elimina este párrafo una vez la traducción esté completa) TEJIENDO ALTERNATIVAS #07: Una publicación periódica del Tejido Global de Alternativas

Fomentar los vínculos a través de la educación Por Lina Álvarez Villarreal No cabe duda de que estamos atravesando una profunda crisis civilizatoria. Esta crisis se ha manifestado en una multiplicidad de crisis: políticas, económicas, ecológicas y, más recientemente, sanitarias. Creo que el principio motor de esta devastadora situación hay que buscarlo en la ruptura de la relación de las sociedades modernas con la Tierra (entendida como una red viva de relaciones). Esta ruptura se manifiesta e…

This article was written by Eduardo González‑Sargas, a Colorado State University research scientist and ecologist whose work focuses on river and restoration ecology.For more than a decade...

Energy and economic security can be rapidly reinforced by stopping gas loss. The amount of methane vented and leaked into the air today by the global oil and gas industry is even greater than the total pre-war volume of gas passing through the Strait of Hormuz. When flared gas is added, this overall energy waste is equal to over one-half of worldwide LNG exports.

With energy markets roiling over the loss of 20% of the gas volume traveling through this chokepoint, companies have a responsibility to stop their gas loss on energy security grounds alone. Moreover, given price hikes due to the ongoing conflict, there are immediate economic benefits for selling rather than wasting their gas.

Texas’s oil and gas industry spotlights this massive energy and economic opportunity. Preventing gas venting and flaring in Texas alone could make up the total lost gas volume due to current disruptions in the Persian Gulf. Preventing gas waste and accurately accounting for companies’ self-reported gas loss is not only fair practice, but it also has paybacks for industry and increases resource royalties to the Texas state budget. By keeping gas in the pipe and out of the air, operators can also safeguard people and the planet. As one of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers, Texas serves as a case study to investigate and quantify how companies can step up to bolster energy, economic, and climate security by stopping gas loss.

Reducing system inefficiencies bolsters energy security

There are inefficiencies in oil and gas industry operations that lead to gas waste and methane emissions. The industry acknowledges it. Mitigating product loss, which is paramount when energy supplies are constrained, can be prevented by tighter oversight, better operations, and strategic investments.

Gas loss is becoming increasingly visible due to advances in satellites, sensors, and continuous monitoring. Ongoing measurements are creating alignment around a new priority: turning actionable data into operational decisions that improve reliability, reduce costs, offer payback, and increase production efficiency. The barrier is no longer technology, but workflows — ensuring that actionable insights reach engineers and operators in time to drive change.

Over 10,000 plumes have been spotted in Texas alone over the past several years, amounting to some hundreds of tons of wasted methane gas. A recent gas release spewing over three tons of methane was detected on the eastern edge of the Permian Basin in Texas, as shown below. The two leaks detected by Carbon Mapper at this site, which persisted for two days, wasted as much energy as it takes to dry over 300,000 loads of laundry.

Sample methane plume spotted in Texas by satellites Source: Carbon Mapper Data Portal, Accessed April 14, 2026.

Lowering the volume of gas we waste heightens energy security because more gas makes it to market. Conversely, supply shocks trigger fuel shortages, especially in import-dependent nations. And energy insecurity drives up the price of oil and gas, leading to inflation and economic insecurity.

Preventing gas waste produces revenue streams and boosts economic security

Methane is the main component in gas, and is also co-produced with oil. When it’s allowed to escape into the atmosphere, it’s sheer energy and material waste. When kept in the pipe and sold, it’s a valuable commodity. Moreover, when companies minimize their operational inefficiencies, the gains are transformed into economic benefits for communities in the form of increased revenues, royalties, and jobs.

The industry knows its gas value proposition. When prices are high, gas loss drops. It then rises when prices are low, as plotted for the United States below.

On a global scale, the estimated 81 million metric tons of methane that the oil and gas industry squanders annually through venting and leaking its gas has an estimated economic value today of $20 billion to 50 billion a year, depending on highly variable gas prices. (See endnote for assumptions). In terms of overall financial opportunities, the economic loss of wasted gas is twice as great when also accounting for the additional 150 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas that is flared worldwide. Given the high volatility of global gas prices, foregone revenue streams, royalties, and resource rents from wasted gas are a material corporate and national concern.

Stopping methane emissions rapidly improves climate security

Methane is over 80 times more powerful at heating Earth over its decade-long lifetime. In other words, every metric ton of methane that is stopped or avoided dramatically lowers damages wrought by droughts, flash floods, excess heat, firestorms, and other climate-driven disasters. The fastest path to reducing methane emissions is improving oil and gas industry operations to prevent gas loss. The companies that succeed in this quest are those that can keep their gas in the pipe.

Improved measurement, models, and methodologies are enabling the shift from data insights to durable action. For example, Carbon Mapper’s data portal identifies large point source methane-emitting events. This focuses operators’ attention on rapidly fixing their super-emitting assets. Separately, NASA’s Black Marble product analyzes nightlights using the VIIRS satellite to make gas flaring data publicly available. And ClimateTRACE quantifies wide-ranging oil and gas industry methane emissions between countries.

Drilling down in Texas

RMI’s study, Drilling Down on Gas Loss, finds that Texas oil and gas operators’ self-reported gas loss is likely 3–4.5 times higher than what is currently self-reported. This results in energy waste and methane emissions that are highly variable across basins, well types, and production volumes, as mapped below.

For example, in February 2026, Carbon Mapper detected a plume in Big Spring, Texas (illustrated above) that emitted 3.4 tons of methane per hour. Coincidentally, this major gas release is in Howard County, Texas, the same county that RMI’s study identified as highly wasteful. Together, bottom-up and top-down analyses can provide real-world validation of gas loss.

Across Texas, the volume of wasted gas identified in this state alone could yield some 15.6 bcm per year of marketable gas. In 2024, before gas prices recently spiked, over $1 billion in Texas’s gas value was forgone, with associated lost tax revenue of nearly $100 million. Today, this amounts to $1.6 billion in forgone gas value at current Henry Hub gas prices.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

 

Over half of the gas wasted in Texas is attributed to low-volume oil wells that intentionally vent their gas (predominantly methane) directly into the air. This loss is under operators’ control. Moreover, this intentional waste is frequently disguised through under- or false reporting. Nearly one-half of Texas’s company-operated oil leases reported zero gas produced or zero gas loss during at least one month in 2024. Gas leases more accurately reported their product loss.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Why industry needs to accurately report and stop gas loss

The sizeable gas loss in Texas alone masks the scale of energy waste from an industry that is largely promoting waste reduction. For example, at CERAWeek 2026 — the largest energy convening in Houston, Texas — numerous companies made clear that the oil and gas industry is ready to treat methane and wasted gas not just as an environmental liability, but as signals of operational inefficiency and lost economic value.

Some operators note that spikes in flaring during production is too common, reinforcing the need for actionable, real-time data to improve operations. Other operators emphasize that methane mitigation is becoming embedded in operational excellence, with reductions made through equipment upgrades. Across international and national oil and gas companies, the message was consistent: better data leads to better operations — reducing downtime, improving process control, and modernizing equipment — which directly translates into lower emissions and economic gains.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

When companies reduce gas waste, they not only make a difference to their bottom lines. The war in the Middle East highlights a devastating reminder that preventing gas loss is also a matter of energy security. All told, some 112 billion cubic meters of gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz annually. Remarkably, this disrupted trade volume that is upending global energy markets is just a fraction of the 280 billion cubic meters of gas that oil and gas companies discard through venting and flaring every year. We have the policy and market tools to prevent gas loss. If acted on, this will win-win-win, significantly bolstering energy, economic, and environmental security.

Acknowledgment: Thank you to Dwayne Purvis (Purvis Energy Advisors) for his lead on the Texas study, Drilling Down on Gas Loss.

Endnotes: These calculations assume (1) a methane content in gas of 74%–85%; (2) methane density of 0.657 kilograms per cubic meter; (3) a heat conversion of 1038 btu per cubic foot; (4) resource pricing of $3.70 per million British Thermal Units (MMbtu) for pipelined natural gas anchored on Henry Hub; (5) $11.33 per 1000 cubic feet for LNG; (6) 2024 Waha Gas Hub and Henry Hub prices of $0.21 to 2.21/MMbtu, respectively; (7) April’s Henry Hub gas spot price is computed as $2.79 per MMbtu for 2026.

The post Stopping Global Gas Loss in Its Tracks appeared first on RMI.

A proposed rule would declassify “chemical recycling” as incineration. We think that’s a bad idea.

“It is not that we have a short time to live,” the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote, “but that we waste a lot of it.” His point — that we often waste things that hold great value — echoes through the centuries.  

As the closure of the Strait of Hormuz forces governments around the world to enact restrictive policies to stabilize their energy supplies and national economies, it’s a critical time to reflect on wasted energy resources.

Before the war, some 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies was shipped through the Strait. But with blockades and damaged infrastructure largely bottling up that supply, it’s a moment to look at where that supply could be made up if a concerted effort is made to stop gas from escaping systemwide.

The answer? Waste. 

The 112 billion cubic meters of gas lost by the Strait’s closure is dwarfed by the scale of gas wasted by venting and flaring worldwide. The good news is that we have the technological and policy tools available to us today to limit waste and increase our energy and economic security. 

Wasted gas is no longer invisible. More satellites, drones, sensors, and other technologies are being used to reconcile differing methane inventories and identify methane super-emitters. Now we must segue from “how to measure” to “how to act.” Getting actionable insights embedded into system design, planning, operations, and emissions management systems is key. So too are policies that limit leakage and actions that amplify methane mitigation through sound financial investments and smart insurance underwriting.

Were Seneca an energy planner today, he might observe that energy supplies are ample, but only if we know how not to waste them. 

 Read more: Stopping Global Gas Loss in Its Tracks

The post The World Wastes More Gas Each Year Than the Strait of Hormuz Supplies appeared first on RMI.

The Mississippi is well worth reading about. It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable. — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi The Mississippi River is a...

The Mississippi is well worth reading about. It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable. — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi The Mississippi River is a...

Disclaimer: This article is a satirical/tabloid-style deep dive based on reported facts and public sources. Spoof sections are clearly labelled. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Part 1 — Fact-Based Deep Dive

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos Energy and Shell are pushing ahead with oil and gas exploration in the US Gulf, in a move that says plenty about where big energy capital now feels welcome — and where it does not.

According to The Times, Ineos Energy is teaming up with Shell to explore opportunities near Shell’s Appomattox platform in the Gulf of Mexico, after Ineos acquired a 21 per cent stake in the platform from China’s CNOOC. The partnership is focused on developing Shell’s Fort Sumter discovery, understood to hold more than 125 million barrels of recoverable oil equivalent, identifying further exploration wells, and assessing broader development opportunities in the area.

The geography matters. This is not a speculative punt in the middle of nowhere. Appomattox is already an operating deepwater production hub, Shell is the operator, and Ineos is now plugged into a basin where infrastructure, geology, capital discipline and regulatory predictability all converge. In oil-speak, that means one thing: if the rocks behave, the money has somewhere sensible to go.

Ineos has already had a taste of the prize. In December 2025, it announced a new Norphlet oil discovery at the Shell-operated Nashville well, where Ineos holds a 21 per cent working interest and Shell holds 79 per cent. The well was drilled more than five miles beneath the seabed, confirmed high-quality oil, and could be tied back to the nearby Appomattox platform.

That is the magic phrase in deepwater economics: tie-back. A discovery near existing infrastructure is not just a geological trophy; it can be a cheaper, faster, lower-risk production candidate than a standalone mega-project. Exploration still carries risk, but the Appomattox neighbourhood gives Ineos and Shell the sort of industrial springboard that makes boardrooms less twitchy.

Ineos’ American expansion did not begin offshore. In 2023, it entered US onshore oil and gas production by buying Chesapeake assets in the Eagle Ford shale for $1.4 billion, acquiring about 2,300 wells producing a net 36,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and leases across 172,000 net acres in south Texas.

Then came the Gulf. In April 2025, Ineos completed its acquisition of CNOOC’s US Gulf business, a deal it said increased its global production to more than 90,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and took its US energy capital spend above $3 billion. The assets included interests around Appomattox and Stampede, plus mature assets and supporting operations.

So the pattern is now obvious: Ratcliffe’s outfit is not dabbling in America. It is building a proper oil and gas platform there — onshore shale, offshore deepwater, LNG exposure, and a seat beside Shell in one of the world’s most important hydrocarbon provinces.

And now for the uncomfortable British bit.

The Times report frames Ineos’ US push against the backdrop of frustration with the UK’s oil and gas fiscal regime. Ineos Energy chief executive David Bucknall is reported as saying that America’s stable fiscal and regulatory environment is a key attraction, while UK policy volatility and high taxes make large domestic investment harder to justify.

That is not just corporate moaning into the Aberdeen drizzle. The UK government itself announced that the Energy Profits Levy would rise to 38 per cent from November 2024, taking the headline tax rate on upstream oil and gas activities to 78 per cent, with the levy extended to 31 March 2030.

For the North Sea, that is a brutal sales pitch: mature basin, declining reserves, political hostility, uncertain licensing, and a headline tax rate that screams “thanks for the cash, now please leave quietly.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US Gulf offers scale, infrastructure and a government system that, whatever its political noise, still tends to treat oil and gas production as a strategic asset rather than a moral embarrassment.

This is the central irony. British companies are still perfectly willing to drill. They are just increasingly willing to drill somewhere else.

Shell’s role is equally revealing. Under Wael Sawan, Shell has been refocusing on shareholder returns, oil, gas and LNG after investor scepticism over earlier green-energy ambitions. A separate Times report notes that Shell’s recent strategy has emphasised buybacks, portfolio discipline and oil and gas, although the company still faces questions over reserve life and long-term growth compared with US rivals.

Put simply: Shell needs barrels. Ineos wants growth. The Gulf has rocks, rigs and rules that investors can understand. The North Sea has a tax regime that looks like it was designed by someone who wants the industry to stay just long enough to pay for its own funeral.

None of this removes the climate contradiction. Ineos says it is pursuing a dual-track approach: meeting current energy demand while investing in carbon storage, LNG, hydrogen and other transition technologies. Its own materials say it is active in oil, gas, power and carbon credits, while also investing in LNG and carbon capture and storage.

But the hard commercial reality is that hydrocarbons still dominate the cash machine. Carbon capture is the corporate hymn sheet; oil and gas are the till receipts.

The Nashville discovery, the Fort Sumter development push, and the Appomattox partnership show that Ineos is positioning itself not as a reluctant fossil-fuel legacy player, but as a serious transatlantic upstream operator. Shell, meanwhile, is doing what Shell does best: squeezing value from big, technically complex basins where it already has infrastructure and operating expertise.

The broader story is not “oil companies discover they like oil.” That was never in doubt. The real story is that Britain’s energy giants and industrial champions are voting with their capital. The UK can talk about energy security, transition jobs and industrial strategy all it likes; if the investment case is better in America, the rigs, engineers and future barrels will follow.

The North Sea is not dead. But it is being politically sedated.

And in the Gulf, Ineos and Shell have found exactly the sort of place where the industry still hears the magic words: drill, develop, produce, repeat.

Part 2 — Clearly Labelled Spoof PR / Spin Section

Official Statement From the Department of Making Everything Sound Fine

We welcome the exciting news that British-linked energy expertise is creating jobs, investment and production opportunities in… America.

This is clear evidence that the UK remains a world leader in exporting confidence, capital and drilling ambition to jurisdictions that have not yet decided to treat domestic oil and gas as a taxable sin bin.

The government’s 78 per cent headline tax rate should not be viewed as a deterrent. It should be viewed as an innovative industrial strategy encouraging companies to broaden their horizons, discover new continents, and support energy security somewhere with warmer water.

We remain fully committed to the North Sea, especially as a historic concept, a source of tax revenue, and a scenic backdrop for speeches about transition.

Official Statement From Big Oil’s Department of Polished Optimism

We are delighted to confirm that our latest deepwater activities demonstrate our unwavering commitment to reliable energy, responsible development, shareholder value, transition-compatible hydrocarbons, disciplined capital allocation, and phrases that make drilling sound like a yoga retreat.

The Gulf opportunity is attractive because it combines world-class geology with infrastructure and a fiscal regime that does not require a séance before every investment committee meeting.

We remain committed to the UK, subject to geology, economics, tax stability, regulatory clarity, political weather, coffee availability, and whether anyone in Whitehall can say “investment certainty” without laughing.

Part 3 — Spoof Bot-Reaction / Comment Section

@EnergyRealistBot:
British company drills in America because America likes energy. Analysts stunned by obvious thing.

@NorthSeaNostalgia:
Remember when the North Sea was a national asset? Anyway, it’s now a tax piñata wearing a hard hat.

@GreenwashDetector3000:
“Dual-track strategy” detected. Translation: oil now, carbon capture PowerPoint later.

@DividendGoblin:
Shell + Ineos + existing infrastructure = shareholders quietly sharpening their calculators.

@PolicyVolatilityBot:
UK: “Why won’t you invest?”
Also UK: “Here is a 78 per cent tax rate and a ministerial mood swing.”

@DeepwaterDrama:
Five miles beneath the seabed and still easier to navigate than British energy policy.

@AberdeenEngineer:
Can someone let us know whether we’re building the energy transition or attending the North Sea’s retirement party?

@FiscalRegimeFan:
America offered certainty. Britain offered vibes, levies and a consultation document. The rig chose certainty.

Ineos and Shell Drill Into America While Britain Taxes Its Own Basin Into the Sick Bay was first posted on May 4, 2026 at 8:17 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

By Lauren Bourg, Director, Mississippi River Delta Program, National Audubon Society & Alisha Renfro, Coastal Scientist, Mississippi River Delta Restoration Program, National Wildlife Federation In July of 2025, the Landry Administration canceled the Mid Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD), a cornerstone of the state’s Coastal Master Plan since 2007. The state offered various excuses for the decision to legislators in committee last year, including concerns about project costs (despite funding being fully covered by Deepwater Horizon oil spill funds), potential hypoxic ...

Read The Full Story

The post Landry Administration Writes Off Barataria Basin While Offering New Justification for Cancellation of the Mid-Barataria Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.