1-5 of 5 results for subject:Shell
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.529 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Shell
- We searched for
- subject_t:Shell OR subject_t:"Royal Dutch Shell" OR subject_t:"Shell Group" OR subject_ses:70018
Year
X
2008
Type
+
Members' contributions (3)
-
Oral questions (3)
+
Parliamentary committees (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Parliamentary papers (2)
-
House of Commons papers (2)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (2)
+
Debates (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Parliamentary questions (3)
-
Oral questions (3)
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I apologise for not having declared my interest as a member of the renewable energy committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman.
I thank the Minister for his Answer but he has not answered the Question about Shell. Perhaps I can help him by saying that the original announcement on behalf of Shell that it had withdrawn was countermanded later the same day by a statement that was very ambiguous. It said not that it was withdrawing, but that it had not yet completed negotiations for the sale of arrays in this country that would have meant it had withdrawn. It also said that it was dissatisfied by its array in Blackpool lying in the flight path of the airport. Have the Government done anything to address that problem on its behalf? A similar set of complaints arises from BP, which even more unfortunately withdrew a few days later—a far bigger calamity—because it does not have the same fiscal advantages here as in the USA. Will the Minister tell us more about that whole concept?
My Lords, I apologise for not having declared my interest as a member of the renewable energy committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman.
I thank the Minister for his Answer but he has not answered the Question about Shell. Perhaps I can help him by saying that the original announcement on behalf of Shell that it had withdrawn was countermanded later the same day by a statement that was very ambiguous. It said not that it was withdrawing, but that it had not yet completed negotiations for the sale of arrays in this country that would have meant it had withdrawn. It also said that it was dissatisfied by its array in Blackpool lying in the flight path of the airport. Have the Government done anything to address that problem on its behalf? A similar set of complaints arises from BP, which even more unfortunately withdrew a few days later—a far bigger calamity—because it does not have the same fiscal advantages here as in the USA. Will the Minister tell us more about that whole concept?
Asked by
Lord James of Blackheath
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 November 2008
My Lords, I think not. These are commercial decisions of the companies concerned. I understand that, in the statements, Shell acknowledged the support that the Government had given in taking the project so far. The Government are concerned about ensuring that such projects go ahead, so far as possible, which is why we have welcomed other companies that have come in to take up those possibilities.
Subjects
Wind power; Shell; Renewable energy
Date
17 November 2008
Reference
705 c922
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Treasury Committee
Subjects
Investment; Financial Services Authority; Financial markets; Oil; Regulation; Shell; Centre for Global Energy Studies; Futures and Options Association; Ice Futures Europe; Weiner, Robert; Cook, Chris
Commons Library location
CS 192
Date
15 July 2008
Reference
HC 987-i 2007-08
House
House of Commons
Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee
Subjects
Ofgem; Energy supply; Prices; Shell; British Petroleum; ExxonMobil
Commons Library location
CS 962
Date
17 June 2008
Reference
HC 293-v 2007-08
House
House of Commons
I am listening to the Government describing us as leading on offshore wind power, yet Shell is pulling out of key offshore wind farm projects in this morning's newspapers. When we look further at the Government's biomass co-firing feedstocks, we find that a fifth of those are coming from palm oil products, which are causing deforestation and loss of habitat for the orang-utan. We know that things are not being sustainably sourced, and we know that we will not even be close to meeting the EU target of 20 per cent. by 2020 if we lose wind farms and Shell's investment. I do not think that the Minister's response that it is all very disappointing is good enough. Will he please see what he can do to try to meet these targets, which the whole House would support?
I am listening to the Government describing us as leading on offshore wind power, yet Shell is pulling out of key offshore wind farm projects in this morning's newspapers. When we look further at the Government's biomass co-firing feedstocks, we find that a fifth of those are coming from palm oil products, which are causing deforestation and loss of habitat for the orang-utan. We know that things are not being sustainably sourced, and we know that we will not even be close to meeting the EU target of 20 per cent. by 2020 if we lose wind farms and Shell's investment. I do not think that the Minister's response that it is all very disappointing is good enough. Will he please see what he can do to try to meet these targets, which the whole House would support?
Asked by
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 May 2008
The Government are responsible for many things, but the decision that Shell has taken is not one of them. Shell made it clear in its statement that the regulatory framework that the Government have set is not the reason for its decision. I said in answer to the earlier question that many people would like to know the reason because Shell has spoken previously about its commitment to investment in renewables, and this is an important test. I hope that the project will be sustained.
On offshore wind, 3.3 GW already have permission. Round 2 should deliver another 7 GW. The Government want a further major expansion up to 25 GW, so we are serious about this.
On biofuels, Ed Gallagher is carrying out the review. As far as the climate is concerned, there are good biofuels and bad biofuels, and we have to be able to distinguish between the two. The review will be important, but we need to encourage the right kind of biofuels. We also need to encourage the second generation of biofuels, and we are determined to do that.
Subjects
Biofuels; Greater London; Standards; Renewable energy; Seas and oceans; Wind power; Shell; Carbon emissions
Date
1 May 2008
Reference
475 c428-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I am sure my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am at today's news that Shell is pulling out of the London Array, which will be the UK's biggest offshore wind farm. When it is ever suggested that there should be a windfall tax on the vast profits of energy companies, they say that they need the money to invest in new technologies. In view of Shell's announcement today, should that policy be revisited by the Government?
I am sure my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am at today's news that Shell is pulling out of the London Array, which will be the UK's biggest offshore wind farm. When it is ever suggested that there should be a windfall tax on the vast profits of energy companies, they say that they need the money to invest in new technologies. In view of Shell's announcement today, should that policy be revisited by the Government?
Asked by
Mark Lazarowicz
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 May 2008
I have to say that I would describe the news that Shell wishes to sell its stake as very disappointing, and that many people would want to understand why that was the case, especially in a week in which the company has announced record profits. What I would say on the Government's part is that we have given, and will continue to give, full support to this important project, which, when completed, will produce enough electricity to power about one in four homes in Greater London.
Subjects
Greater London; Energy; Renewable energy; Taxation; Seas and oceans; Wind power; Shell; Carbon emissions
Date
1 May 2008
Reference
475 c427-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons