 |
| Simon Pirani |
As the prime minister flew to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, this month, his office told stories about hydrogen and carbon capture – technologies used by the Kingdom to pose as a friend of the “energy transition”.
 |
| Protest in Australia. Photo by Matt Hrkac. See “The top photo” at the end |
Keir Starmer and his colleagues hope that, in return for this “green” PR, Saudi Arabia will invest some of its vast oil wealth in the UK’s own technofixes.
Simultaneously, the government made a guarantee worth billions of pounds to the oil companies BP and Equinor, to stifle a legal challenge to Net Zero Teesside, their risky carbon capture project, and the expansion of gas production that goes with it.
The government’s dystopian friendship with Riyadh is underpinned by policies that will add substantially to Saudi fossil fuel exports, and to the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere when they are burned.
Saudi policy provides for a 60% increase in gas production by 2030, a 25% expansion of its fossil-fuelled power generation capacity and a doubling of its oil-to-chemicals processing capacity. There are no plans to cut the Kingdom’s oil production, the third highest in the world behind the US and Russia[1] – and no signs that it intends to abandon its decades-long obstruction of intergovernmental climate agreements.
Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, aims to retain its dominant position in export markets, with a commitment to achieve “net zero” by 2050 – which is almost worthless, because it excludes the emissions when the oil is burned, i.e. 85% of them.[2]
In place of climate policy, Saudi Arabia has a “changing communication strategy”, based not only on lavish plans to build wind and solar farms, but also on exaggerated claims that, when it opens the vast new Jafurah shale gas field next year, it will capture carbon from the gas, and use the hydrogen left over to make ammonia for export.
The Saudi “energy transition” will boost both fossil fuel output and profits: energy minister prince Abulaziz bin Salman boasted recently that Saudi Arabia is “probably the only country on planet Earth that will make real money out of the transition”.
Other Gulf states including Oman and the UAE are joining Qatar, already a leading gas exporter, in increasing gas output, while using carbon offsets, climate finance and oceans of PR to present it as “low carbon”.
Remember: for all the claims that hydrogen and carbon capture are “green”, the final result of the Saudi “transition” will be to increase fossil fuel output, and greenhouse gas emissions. Substantially. This is because:
1. Saudi Aramco bosses admit that its ambitious hopes for exporting “blue ammonia” (ammonia made by capturing carbon from gas, and using the hydrogen that is left over) could fail. Some or all of the gas would then be exported as … gas.
Saudi Aramco executive vice-president Ziad Al-Murshed last month said the company “will not be able to proceed” with ammonia projects, unless it can sign long-term commercial offtake agreements – an affliction suffered by would-be hydrogen exporters too.
Al-Murshed suggested that, to get the deals done, incentives would needed from governments of countries buying the ammonia, e.g. Japan, to which a test cargo was delivered last year.
If the ammonia plan fails, Saudi Aramco will “evaluate whether to use these volumes to produce liquefied natural gas”, industry journalists reported – a possibility Aramco has already discussed with oil giants TotalEnergies (France) and Sinopec (China).
So while plans are well advanced to raise Jafurah’s output by 2030 to 20 billion cubic metres of gas per year, equal to more than half the current UK North Sea gas output, the total that ends up being used to fabricate ammonia could well be zero.
2. Carbon dioxide captured and stored at a new plant at Jubail may be marketed for use in the petrochemical industry … or it could be used to boost fossil fuel production.
Most carbon dioxide captured globally is pumped into underground cavities (“reservoirs”) containing oil, to increase the pressure under which the oil is forced up wells to the surface. This technique, enhanced oil recovery, is already used at Saudi Aramco’s existing carbon capture plant at Hawiyah.
Carbon dioxide removed from fossil fuels mined yesterday is used to mine more, more efficiently, tomorrow.
3. Saudi Arabia’s plans for a gigantic “green” hydrogen factory – part of its controversial Neom project to build a new city in the desert – will divert renewable energy resources away from the electricity grid, where fossil fuel burning is projected to rise.
Neom Green Hydrogen,[3] a US-Saudi joint venture, plans to fabricate 220,000 tonnes of hydrogen per year, by electrolysis of water, powered by giant wind and solar farms.
This “green” hydrogen is indeed very low carbon, but is also more than twice as expensive as “blue” hydrogen produced from gas[4] – so could encounter even greater problems finding buyers.
Economies of scale might make it cheaper: certainly Saudi Arabia’s desert could accommodate huge wind and solar farms – although how easily ENOWA, a partner company, will produce the necessary 5.4 million litres of fresh water per day for the process is anyone’s guess.
The biggest problem, though, is about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In the climate emergency, the first call on renewable electricity should, in principle, be to supply the electricity grid, so that oil- and gas-fired power stations – from which 99% of Saudi electricity is currently generated – can be closed.
By diverting renewable resources from that priority, the Neom project will ensure that total fossil fuel use keeps rising.
Saudi Arabia has also said nothing about substituting its current use of disastrously emissions-intensive “grey” hydrogen (produced from gas without capturing the carbon).
Keir Starmer’s visit heralds a new chapter in the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, in which London will use its ill-deserved reputation for “climate leadership” to help Riyadh greenwash the horror of mounting oil and gas production.
It builds on a long UK-Saudi friendship. Our governments have approved weapons sales to Riyadh for decades, notwithstanding the Kingdom’s treatment of women as second-class citizens, its cruelty towards migrant workers and suppression of dissent.
In return for greenwash, the government hopes to attract investment.
By far the most significant sum of money mentioned in Number Ten’s press release is £785 million that HyCap, a private equity fund, intends to invest, to “develop hydrogen mobility clusters […] creating more than 1000 jobs”.
Keir Starmer said that this would “support Saudi Arabia’s plans to reach net zero emissions by 2060”, and presumably some of these funds may come from the Kingdom.
HyCap was launched in 2021 by Jo Bamford, son of billionaire Anthony Bamford, whose family controls JCB, the multinational equipment manufacturer.
Number Ten claims that HyCap will “deliver hydrogen buses, trucks and critical components”, while “removing 25 million tonnes of transport-related CO2” (with no details on how).
HyCap’s biggest success so far has been at bus maker Wrightbus of Ballymena in northern Ireland, which was brought out of administration in 2019 and now employs more than 2000 people.
But the big sales deals it has announced – including for GoAhead, Stagecoach and First Bus – are for electric buses, not hydrogen – except that the GoAhead contract includes just 43 hybrid electric-hydrogen vehicles, out of 1100.
This underlines the warnings made by engineering researchers for years, that electric buses are more efficient than hydrogen ones. Hydrogen may be suitable for powering heavier vehicles, surely a reason for JCB’s interest, but firm orders for those lie in the future.
The electric buses jobs are welcome – but will not help Saudi Arabia “reach net zero”!
HyCap has also invested in other companies controlled by Jo Bamford, including Ryze Power, which plans to supply and distribute, but not produce, hydrogen – and whose PR team assures the world that hydrogen is the future aviation fuel, despite widespread scepticism.
Ryze may source hydrogen from HyGen Energy, another Bamford-linked company, which, on top of £27 million from HyCap, received a slice of government funding to build a factory in Bradford.
 |
| The Tasnee petrochemicals plant, Saudi Arabia. Photo: Creative commons |
Bamford’s success in attracting state funds under the last Tory government led to claims of a possible conflict of interest by former energy minister Claire Coutinho. She took donations from Anthony Bamford, including a £7000 private helicopter ride, before her department approved the Bradford funding, plus grants of £3.2 million and £21 million for Ryze’s planned hydrogen refuelling network.
One HyCap investment that will certainly help to increase greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning is in Yamna, which together with EDF and J-Power plans to develop 4.5 GW of solar and wind power to produce “green ammonia” in Oman.
Like the Saudi Neom venture, this will divert renewable electricity from the grid, which in Oman is 95% reliant on gas.
Other projects mentioned by Number Ten include:
□ Carbon Clean, a London-based technology company, will supply carbon capture technology to the Jubail project, established by Saudi Aramco, SLB and Linde earlier this month. Number Ten claims Carbon Clean is “aiming to create 2000 UK jobs”, but there is no detail about how that might happen.
🔴 Graphene Innovation Manchester will produce graphene-enriched carbon fibre for use in the Neom project. Number Ten says this is “expected to create more than 1000 skilled jobs”.
🔴The UK and Saudi Arabia “are working together to establish a new Joint International Institute for Clean Hydrogen”, with the participation of Newcastle, Durham and other universities.
All Number Ten’s references to new jobs are speculative. And no wonder. The government has shown scant interest in well-thought-out proposals for regeneration of northern industrial areas, e.g. by the Institute for Public Policy Research, who prioritise joined-up government, tax reform and restoring the public sector, rather than hopes of Saudi investment.
While the prime minister was in the Gulf, the oil company BP announced that, with its partners, it had reached financial close on Net Zero Teesside, the UK’s own fossil fuel project with “green” advertising.
BP and Equinor of Norway plan to build a gas-fired power station on Teesside, capture carbon dioxide emissions from it and store them under the North Sea – but face a challenge in the Court of Appeal in March next year from Andrew Boswell, an environmental consultant, who argues that it unlawfully breaches climate commitments.
Within days of BP announcing it is going ahead, investigative journalists found that it had only committed funds to the venture after the government had promised to underwrite loans by BP and Equinor, if the court blocks the development.
The Labour government’s Faustian pact with Saudi Arabia, and its unprecedented gamble with billions of pounds to steamroller opposition to Net Zero Teesside, make much clearer what it means by “energy transition”.
It has joined the “transition” mapped out by international energy companies and governments of fossil-fuel-producing countries: fossil fuel burning will continue to expand for decades; hydrogen and carbon capture will be used to give it a “green” face; and renewables will be added to fossil fuels, rather than used to replace them.
In order to counter this effectively, and to fight for a different kind of transition – one that really takes us away from fossil fuels in a socially just way – we need first to understand exactly what road the government is taking.
All Number Ten’s references to new jobs are speculative. And no wonder. The government has shown scant interest in well-thought-out proposals for regeneration of northern industrial areas, e.g. by the Institute for Public Policy Research, who prioritise joined-up government, tax reform and restoring the public sector, rather than hopes of Saudi investment.
While the prime minister was in the Gulf, the oil company BP announced that, with its partners, it had reached financial close on Net Zero Teesside, the UK’s own fossil fuel project with “green” advertising.
BP and Equinor of Norway plan to build a gas-fired power station on Teesside, capture carbon dioxide emissions from it and store them under the North Sea – but face a challenge in the Court of Appeal in March next year from Andrew Boswell, an environmental consultant, who argues that it unlawfully breaches climate commitments.
Within days of BP announcing it is going ahead, investigative journalists found that it had only committed funds to the venture after the government had promised to underwrite loans by BP and Equinor, if the court blocks the development.
The Labour government’s Faustian pact with Saudi Arabia, and its unprecedented gamble with billions of pounds to steamroller opposition to Net Zero Teesside, make much clearer what it means by “energy transition”.
It has joined the “transition” mapped out by international energy companies and governments of fossil-fuel-producing countries: fossil fuel burning will continue to expand for decades; hydrogen and carbon capture will be used to give it a “green” face; and renewables will be added to fossil fuels, rather than used to replace them.
In order to counter this effectively, and to fight for a different kind of transition – one that really takes us away from fossil fuels in a socially just way – we need first to understand exactly what road the government is taking.
□ Please support the crowdfunder for Andrew Boswell’s action against Net Zero Teesside. And make a date in your diary: his supporters will demonstrate outside the Court of Appeal at the Strand, London, at about 12.30pm on Tuesday 4 March.
🔴 Read People & Nature’s introductions to hydrogen and carbon capture.
🔴 The top photo was taken by Matt Hrkac at a protest against carbon capture greenwash in Torquay, in Australia’s Victoria state, in 2021. Coastal community groups have kept working together against oil companies’ assaults on their environment – most recently, proposals to do seismic blasting to explore for oil deposits in the Southern Ocean nearby. In September this year came a big success: a project by the oilfield service giants TGS and Schlumberger, which would have been the largest seismic blasting project in world history, was axed.
[1] Saudi oil production has changed little, ranging between 520-580 million tonnes, since 2013, while gas production has risen by almost one-fifth. See the Energy Institute Statistical Review
[2] The commitment covers “scope1” and “scope 2” emissions, i.e. those caused by the company’s own mining and preliminary processing operations, but not “scope 3” emissions caused by the use of its products – in this case, the burning of its oil and gas
[3] Neom Green Hydrogen Company is an equal production joint venture of ACWA Power of Saudi Arabia, which is 44% owned by the government’s Public Investment Fund, NEOM of Saudi Arabia and Air Products of the US
[4] The International Energy Agency’s most recent Global Hydrogen Review (2023) reports the levelised cost of “grey” hydrogen at $1-3 (which accounts for 99% of global production and dumps twice as much carbon into the atmosphere as the entire UK economy), “blue” hydrogen from fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage at $1.5-3.6, and “green” hydrogen produced by electrolysis with low-emission electricity, at $3.4-12
No comments