Dear Lady Sheehan

DESNZ response to House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee Methane Inquiry follow-up questions

I am writing in response to follow up questions following former Minister Justin Tomlinson’s appearance on Wednesday 15th May 2024 before your Committee as part of the Methane inquiry. It was not possible to provide this information ahead of the dissolution of Parliament, hence I am sending this response as the responsible minister in the new government.

What is the name of the Cabinet committee responsible for coordinating net zero? Who attends from the relevant departments, how frequently does it meet and what recent decisions taken or discussions had are relevant to methane mitigation?

The current list of Cabinet committees and Mission Boards, including their membership and terms of reference, is available on gov.uk. 

Alongside Cabinet committees there are five designated Mission Boards - on growth, clean energy, safer streets, opportunities and health. The Boards are chaired by the respective lead Secretaries of State (with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as Deputy Chair), with a remit to oversee and drive progress on the relevant mission. 

Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of these five defining missions of the Government. The Mission has two pillars: delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. The Clean Energy Superpower Mission Board is the principal senior governance mechanism to organise key departmental delivery of the Mission. The Mission Board is focused on providing strategic direction, ensuring that all of His Majesty’s government works collaboratively on delivering the Mission. 

It is a long-established precedent that information about the discussions that have taken place in Cabinet and its committees - including mission boards - their attendance, and how often they have met, is not normally shared publicly. Given the public interest in collective responsibility and the maintenance of the ability of ministers to debate and develop policy frankly and freely, the Government’s working assumption is that information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet and its committees should remain confidential.

How would the Government respond to oral evidence received on 8 May that the Government compares unfavourably with Norway on progress in net zero policy in offshore oil and gas?

Through the North Sea Transition Deal, the industry is committed to reducing its emissions by 50% by 2030, against a 2018 baseline. The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) estimates that between 2018 and 2022, emissions from upstream oil and gas production have decreased by approximately 23%. Flaring on the UK Continental Shelf is estimated to have already decreased by nearly 50 per cent since 2018.

In its OGA Plan, published in March 2024, the NSTA set out a range of decarbonisation requirements for upstream oil and gas operators. This includes a range of requirements on methane emission reduction, including from flaring, venting and fugitive emissions, but also sets out requirements for low carbon power and asset electrification – a key approach for reducing CO2 emissions. The NSTA therefore highlights the need for action across the board on production decarbonisation.

Historical differences between the UK and other countries mean that we face different challenges when trying to reduce emissions. While we are already amongst the best in the world for flaring and venting, with one of the lowest upstream methane intensities, our basin is in decline, and contains a lot of ageing infrastructure, including many with only a short production life. Retrofitting at such a late stage is therefore incredibly challenging and expensive.

What is the Government’s assessment of the current network of tall towers for greenhouse gas measurement in terms of their geographical coverage of the UK and reliability? Are there any improvements or enhancements to this network the Government would like to see, and if so what?

Our assessment is that, following significant investment, we have appropriate and proportionate geographical coverage suitable for the verification of national emissions estimates. The precision of methane emission estimates has increased in line with site investment of approximately £3m between 2022 and 2024, growing from one site in 1987 to six operational sites currently. We assess that we are at the point of diminishing returns on any further expansion for the purpose of verifying the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), which provides a Country level assessment used in international reporting.

As we strive for the UK to remain a global leader in emissions, NAEI accuracy and its science, we review new research and evidence to further improve our emissions estimates through exploration of new technologies. We commission improvement projects through a dedicated

£3m inventory improvement programme.

The science of attribution of emissions to specific location, time, or from a specific sector is developing and we welcome information that helps improve the NAEI and its value. As you heard in the Oral Evidence session, the government is closely engaged with the £12m UKRI- funded Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement (GEMMA) programme, aimed at improving local scale monitoring, to better attribute known emissions to specific sectors and activities.

We have heard, disturbingly, that there is a financial incentive for venting to liberate the methane at no penalty, whereas if you light and burn the methane, you will produce a CO2 emission for which there may be a cost penalty associated. First, is this true? Secondly, would it shift people to more venting than flaring?

The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) has not seen evidence of operators deliberately trying to game the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) system in this way. The NSTA’s regulatory regime is designed to counteract this ‘cold flaring’ possibility by consenting flaring and venting activity separately. In practice this means if an operator was to cold flare (vent) instead of flaring, they would be at risk of breaching their vent consent from the NSTA. The NSTA have the power to impose fines of up to £1m for these breaches. Ultimately, the NSTA also has the power to revoke an operator’s licence.

In addition, the UK ETS Authority announced in July 2023 in the Government Response that venting of CO2 will be included in the scope of the scheme from 2025. The UK ETS Authority will be bringing forward legislation shortly implementing this change, which will ensure that CO2 removed from extracted oil and gas is subject to the same UK ETS carbon price whether it is vented or flared.

The expansion of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) scope to include methane from the upstream oil and gas sector is also being considered by the UK ETS Authority. This would act as a further incentive to reduce methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production by levying a carbon price on such emissions. The UK ETS Authority shared publicly in their Government Response of the Developing the UK ETS consultation in July 2023 that this policy is under active consideration.

Please could the Government detail its assessment of the Princeton University study which concluded that UK offshore oil and gas methane emissions are five times higher than reported?

The paper referred to (Riddick S N, Mauzerall D L, ‘Likely substantial underestimation of reported methane emissions from United Kingdom upstream oil and gas activities’ Energy and Environment Science 2023: Volume 16, pages 295-204 (viewed on 23 August 2024) has been assessed by the UK’s Inventory experts in the Department and in the Inventory Agency and found to contain significant errors. We strongly disagree with the paper’s findings. The description of the inventory methodology in the paper is entirely incorrect; the data sources and methods are transparently reported (most recently in 2023) for all methodologies in the United Kingdom 2023 National Inventory Report (NIR). The paper includes a number of instances of incorrect methodological assertions, analysis and assumptions which do not reflect the specific UK context. For example:

Flaring: The paper applies a method based on one 2002 study, applying a range of assumptions and by the authors’ admission takes no account of varying flaring technology and infrastructure; the representativeness of this alternative method to UK circumstances is therefore subject to very considerable uncertainty. To cite this as an “improved” method is, therefore, not justified. Recent UK research (Shaw J T and others, ‘Flaring efficiencies and NOx emission ratios measured for offshore oil and gas facilities in the North Sea’ Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2023: Volume 23, pages 1491-1509 (viewed on 26 April 2024) based on measurements across 60 installations in the North Sea production area that are more representative of UK assets has supported the 98% flaring assumption applied in the UK inventory report.
Fugitive emissions: The description of the inventory methodology in the paper is again incorrect. The paper authors present alternative methods, applying numerous industry-wide assumptions but without rigorous analysis of the likely usefulness and representativeness of the approaches proposed. Until that is done, to cite this as an

“improved” estimate does not reflect the high uncertainties in the method presented and applied in the paper.

Further inaccuracies were also found in the authors’ assessment of how the UK reports emissions from venting and oil transportation. We recognise that emissions from the upstream oil and gas sector are inherently uncertain which is why we have recently completed a 2-year improvement project looking specifically at greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. This included a comprehensive review of new and emerging datasets from the UK and internationally and led to the development of new inventory models for all emission sources in the upstream oil and gas sector. These changes were not reflected in the Riddick and Mauzerall assessment.

This Inquiry also raised interest in the International Energy Agency (IEA)‘s Global Methane Tracker 2022, which indicates that on a global scale, methane emissions from the Energy Sector are under reported by as much as 70%. This report makes no specific assertion about UK emissions and again uses lower assumptions about flaring efficiency in the oil and gas sector of approximately 92% compared to the general global industry assumption of 98%.

It is important to note that in 2022 the upstream oil and gas sector was approximately 1.5% of total UK methane emissions and therefore the impact of any uncertainty on our confidence in overall methane emissions is small. The UK has additional confidence in its methane estimates owing to the findings of the long running GHG Monitoring and Verification Programme as described in my answer to your third question. As part of our continuous inventory improvement programme, we always welcome evidence that may improve emissions estimates.

We have heard that the UK’s attendance at international methane-focused meetings has been limited. The Minister was not able to give us details during the oral evidence session about which meetings the UK attended. Does the Department keep a record of which meetings have been attended in recent years? Could you share this with the Committee?

The UK views methane as a priority in the international climate agenda and aims to send representation to international events and meetings wherever possible. For example, at the United Nations General Assembly, I attended an event on methane emissions convened by the IEA and COP29 Presidency, focused on the fossil fuel sector and supporting Central Asian regional initiatives. I outlined effective action the UK had taken to reduce methane emissions in our fossil fuel sector and our commitment to share expertise and capacity building internationally, including through our funding to the IEA to tackle methane emissions in developing countries.

At COP29, there will be a clear focus on implementing the Global Methane Pledge through tangible actions and policies, and methane emissions in the waste sector will be the priority focus. COP28 last year focused on the energy sector, and COP30 in 2025 will focus on agriculture, as organised by the COP Troika. The UK stands ready to participate in events such as the Global Methane Pledge Ministerial and to engage internationally, maintaining momentum on this important challenge.

There is also extensive official level engagement both bilaterally and multilaterally, including covering methane in an energy dialogue in Baku in July, and sending official and stakeholder representation to the EU and US led working group focused on improving measuring, monitoring, reporting and verification of methane emissions across the international supply chain for natural gas.

We heard there are no full-time staff in DESNZ, the FCDO or elsewhere in Government with a dedicated focus on methane in climate diplomacy. Is this correct?

There are two full time officials who spend a significant portion of their time coordinating HMG’s international work on methane, including negotiation positioning and engaging in bilateral and multilateral initiatives. This is alongside sectoral and analytical teams who also cover methane as part of overall emissions reduction efforts and monitoring.

Yours sincerely,

Kerry McCarthy MP

Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero