Ian Cornwell

I really do not understand the UK Government's stance on North Sea oil and gas. I believe in Net Zero (although I think CP30 is too fast). Even under the most optimistic CP30 and Net Zero scenarios, we will need oil and gas for a very long time. Even if extending North Sea exploration and drilling does not reduce prices at all, it would still: - Produce tax inflows for the government - Reduce our balance of payments deficit - Be lower carbon than LNG imports - Help protect against gas security of supply shocks, although not price shocks (as it enters the GB NTS) - Provide highly skilled and well-paid jobs (and associated NI and income tax revenues) I think the main government arguments are: 1. Climate leadership, and 2. Avoiding “lock-in” in a declining basin. My view is that: 1. The UK is not important enough to “lead the world” in this area (especially while we have some of the highest energy prices), and 2. It is private capital — if investors want to take the risk, why should the government stand in the way?

122

28 Comments

February 2026 marks a turning point for the GB energy landscape. As NESO begins active enforcement of the TMO4+ 'First-Ready' model, thousands of projects are losing their slot in the connection queue for failing to meet the criteria of the readiness audits. ⬇️ If your project relies solely on importing power from a congested network, you are at the back of the queue. ⬆️ If you integrate on-site renewables and high on-site consumption, you have a genuine fast-track. Why on-site is the future winner: - The flexible demand priority: NESO is now prioritising projects that utilise behind-the-meter solutions (Solar PV + Battery Storage) because they reduce the immediate requirement for expensive upstream grid reinforcement. - Bypassing "zombie" projects: While speculative developments wait for infrastructure that may never materialise, buildings with high on-site consumption can prove readiness today, securing connection dates years ahead of schedule. At CQuel, we don’t just help you plan for solar. We help you design the flexible demand profile that NESO auditors require to grant you grid priority.

11

1 Comment

The most expensive hiring mistake I see in this sector? Using a generalist agency for a specialist role It’s not the agency’s fault. They’re built for volume across multiple sectors. They don’t live and breathe data centres or renewables. They can’t So what happens? They search LinkedIn for keywords. They send CVs that look right on paper. The hiring manager spends three weeks interviewing candidates who don’t understand the role. The right person, who was never approached, takes a job elsewhere Three months wasted. The role is still open Specialist roles need specialist recruiters. People who know the difference between a DC Facilities Manager and a Critical Systems Engineer. Who understand what BESS experience actually means. Who can have a technical conversation with a candidate before putting them in front of you That’s the difference. And in this market, it matters #Recruitment #DataCentres #CriticalInfrastructure #Hiring #GCC #Dubai #GBKTalentPartners

3

1 Comment

It's a busy time for energy data consultations. Another day, another response. I'm pleased that I find this proposal very agreeable. Ofgem is planning to extend Data Best Practice (DBP) and Digitalisation Strategy and Action Plan (DSAP) regulations to industry code managers. Industry code managers are natural data monopolies and so it is right that they are regulated to have them maximise the benefits society gains from their data by making it available for use. ---- You can read my full response here: https://lnkd.in/edQfpNc5 #energy #data #digitalisation #economicarchitecture Energy Geeks

22

2 Comments

Very good point Yam Meirovitz... To your question - No, I don’t think we are systematically assessing synergies or valuation during oil & gas M&A today…. I think it needs to be viewed from an ESG lens as well. In my opinion, most synergy assessments still stop at cost, scale, and operational overlap. ESG compatibility tends to get conveniently overlooked, which directly impacts Day 2 performance and long-term value. A proper ESG due-diligence needs to be done that includes: 𝟭) 𝗘: Things like Emissions intensity, methane leakage & fugitive emissions, water stress, historical emissions surprises, pollution risks. 𝟮) 𝗦: For example, workforce demographics, ageing assets and people, safety culture, gender and ethnic diversity, etc.  𝟯) 𝗚: Take, for instance, board-level diversity, risk and compliance frameworks, corruption and ethics policies, % of executive compensation linked to emissions, safety, or compliance, etc. Are these rigorously factored into synergy models today? Mostly 𝗡𝗢. Should they be? 𝗔𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆. WHY? Because if done right, this can change outcomes massively, like: •⁠ ⁠More targeted decarbonisation investments with higher ROI •⁠ ⁠Fewer post-close surprises that trigger write-downs or remediation spend •⁠ ⁠Lower integration capex shocks as emissions and safety liabilities are surfaced early •⁠ ⁠Stronger long-term asset resilience and portfolio quality In M&A deals in the oil and gas sector, ESG is hardly about optics. I actually predict that it will become one of the strongest predictors of post-deal value creation - or erosion. #emissions #decarbonization #decarbonisation #oilandgas #mergers #acquisitions #refinery #energygoals #ESG #climate #integrationfriction #emissionsmonitoring #consolidation

6

2 Comments