The small pipeline playing an oversized role in the energy crisis

Published

3 years ago

December 8, 2022

admin

The chances are you haven’t heard of the BBL pipeline.

It’s a 235km steel tube which runs under the North Sea between Balgzand in the northern tip of the Netherlands and Bacton in Great Britain.

It’s one of those bits of innocuous infrastructure which, most of the time, no-one except energy analysts pay all that much attention to.

But let’s spend a moment pondering this pipe, because it could prove enormously consequential for all of us in the coming months.

Indeed, BBL has already played a silent but essential role in the Ukraine war and, for that matter, the fate of Europe, because this is one of the two main pipelines transporting gas between the UK and Northern Europe.

Actually, BBL is the smaller of the two pipes, the other of which is the rather unimaginatively-named “Interconnector” pipe. But the reason it’s worth focusing on BBL is because in the past few days something rather interesting happened there.

Before we get to that, though, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the big picture here, the challenge facing Europe: a desperate shortage of energy.

Here’s the best way of understanding it: this time last year, Europe (including the UK) was consuming roughly 85 billion cubic metres of natural gas a month. Of that, about 21 billion cubic metres (bcm) – roughly a quarter – came via Russian pipelines.

That gas didn’t just go into our boilers and gas-fired power stations.

It was a feedstock which helped us manufacture chemicals and fertilisers.

It fed us, it fuelled industry, it helped keep the lights on.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, suddenly Europe couldn’t take that 25% of its energy for granted any more. And indeed, most of the Russian supply has since dwindled (it’s now down 81% to about 4bcm a month).

And so much of what might today be categorised as economic news – the rocketing rate of inflation, the squeeze on household incomes and the recession we’re now sliding into – really comes back to this gap, between the gas we used to consume and the gas we can now lay our hands on.

And the short answer is that getting hold of that extra gas isn’t easy at all.

Partly that’s because most of the non-Russian sources which are already pumping gas into European pipelines (which is to say: mainly Norway but, to a lesser extent, the UK, Netherlands and Algeria) are already producing about all they can.

These days you can ship gas (in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), a supercooled liquid) across the ocean from Qatar and the US, but that depends on a few things.

The first is actually getting hold of that gas. The UK on Wednesday published details of a new “US-UK Energy Security and Affordability Partnership” which aims to provide more LNG to the UK. That matters because Britain and Europe are essentially competing with China and other Asian nations on global markets for these cargoes.

The second (and perhaps even more important) factor is having terminals where you can receive and re-gasify the LNG and then feed it into your domestic pipeline network.

But there are only so many of these ports and regasification facilities in Europe. Germany, for instance, has none (though it’s got some temporary capacity coming up soon). The UK has lots. Indeed, it has more LNG capacity in its three ports (two at Milford Haven, one at Isle of Grain) than Belgium and the Netherlands have in total.

The logic of this was that back at the start of the conflict, it looked quite plausible that the UK would become a sort of energy “land bridge” across which gas could be transited to Europe. And that indeed is precisely what happened, which brings us back to the pipeline crossing from the UK to the north of Europe.

Over the past year, a stupendous amount of LNG has been coming into UK ports, drawn in by the stupendously high gas price, from where it has been transferred across the UK’s pipeline network and thence into the European system.

To put this into perspective, in the four summers since 2017, the average amount of natural gas transferred from the UK was around 5.7 trillion cubic metres. This past summer the total was 20.5 trillion cubic metres.

It’s worth dwelling on this for a moment, for it represents one of the under appreciated stories of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Much of the gas which replenished the storage facilities in Europe, which should help them survive the coming winter while keeping homes heated, despite the absence of Russian gas, came via the UK – via the BBL and Interconnector pipelines.

And that’s actually understating it, because those pipelines were only so wide, and so could only carry a certain proportion of the LNG flowing into the UK, but what also happened this summer is that UK gas power plants went into overdrive, burning that gas and turning it into electricity, which was also fed via undersea cables into Europe.

This mattered. Much of France’s nuclear power fleet was out of action this summer as water levels in French rivers ran too low to provide the necessary coolant. British electrons were part of the explanation for why the lights never went out in France.

This astounding flow of gas (which of course has its own climactic consequences) caused some interesting price fluctuations this past year. As we reported earlier in the summer, it helped suppress UK day-ahead gas prices down to surprisingly low levels.

For a period in May and June, the UK wholesale gas price was less than half the level in continental Europe – because the UK was awash with all these natural gas molecules trying to fit themselves into these steel pipes coming out of Bacton.

But in recent weeks those flows have begun to drop, which brings us to the interesting thing that changed in the past few days.

For the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the extraordinary rollercoaster in the gas market, a small quantity of natural gas begun to flow back into the UK.

It’s important not to overstate this. The numbers are very small indeed. But it’s a reminder that actually, in “normal” times, these pipelines serve a very different purpose from the one they’ve served in recent months.

Britain doesn’t have much domestic storage for natural gas. While Germany has about 266 terawatt-hours of storage capacity, the UK has only 53, barely enough to keep boilers going for more than a week or two.

However, the UK strategy in recent years has been to use Europe as a kind of storage system. Think of these underground caverns as a kind of bank.

You deposit gas in them in the warm months and take it out when it gets cold. And in “normal” times the UK has “deposited” its gas in Europe in the summer, sending much of the stuff that came out of the North Sea (and some stuff from those LNG terminals) across the two pipelines and those molecules went into European storage.

And in winter, the UK would typically “withdraw” the gas from Europe when it got cold and it needed a little more for peoples’ boilers. Into Europe in the summer; out of Europe in the winter.

But that brings us to this winter. The UK has put an extraordinary amount of gas into European storage in the summer. What happens if it gets really cold? In any normal winter, it would need to get that gas out of Europe via those pipelines. But this, of course, is not a normal winter. There is a chance that the remaining flows of gas from Russia dry up further, meaning there could be a real shortage. In such circumstances, what happens?

If the market carries on working, then that would push up prices high on continental Europe, but the logic is that in order to attract that gas across the channel, the UK would have to pay even higher prices than continental Europe. In other words, while prices in the UK have been lower than Europe for most of the summer, they could well be higher than Europe for most of the winter.

There is a sign that this is already happening.

In the past couple of days, those prices have converged. But there is also a scarier question: what if the market doesn’t function, because of political interference? What if European nations decide that storage in, say Germany (or for that matter the European Union) cannot leave? Where does that leave the UK, which tends to rely on those pipeline flows from Europe in the event of a cold snap.

The short answer is that no-one really knows. What we do know is that this story isn’t over yet. Gas prices are already eye-wateringly high, especially when you consider that the Government is effectively subsidising them. It’s not implausible that they get even higher.

Business

Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money – it may end up doing the opposite

Published

8 hours ago

August 8, 2025

admin

Why Rachel Reeves may want to rethink one of her pivotal policies

What do we do about the non-doms?

It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.

Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.

Then that all changed.

Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”

The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.

If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.

With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.

So, how worried should she be?

The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.

However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.

Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.

Property sales

Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.

Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.

This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.

“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.

“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.

“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”

Lack of options for non-doms

But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.

This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.

In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.

In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.

Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?

The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.

Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.

So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.

Have Labour crossed a red line?

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.

The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.

Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.

“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”

With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.

Business

Rachel Reeves is celebrating the Bank of England’s interest cut – but behind the scenes she has little to cheer

Published

18 hours ago

August 7, 2025

admin

Rachel Reeves is celebrating the Bank of England's interest cut – but behind the scenes she has little to cheer

The economy is stagnating and job losses are mounting. Now is the time to cut interest rates again.

That was the view of the Bank of England’s nine-member rate setting committee on Thursday.

Well, at least five of them.

The other four presented us with a different view: Inflation is above target and climbing – this is no time to cut interest rates.

Who is right? All of them and none of them.

Central bankers have been backed into a corner by the current economic climate and navigating a path out is challenging.

The difficulty in charting that route was on display as the Bank struggled to decide on the best course of monetary policy.

The committee had to take it to a re-vote for the first time in the Bank’s history.

On one side, central bankers – including Andrew Bailey – were swayed by the data on the economy. Growth is “subdued”, they said, and job losses are mounting.

This should weigh on wage increases, which are already moderating, and in turn inflation.

One member, Alan Taylor, was so worried about the economy he initially suggested a larger half a percentage point cut.

On the other side, their colleagues were alarmed by inflation.

The Bank upgraded its inflation forecasts, with the headline index expected to hit 4% in September.

In a blow to the chancellor, the September figure is used to uprate a number of benefits and pensions. The Bank lifted it from a previous forecast of 3.75%.

In explaining the increase, the Bank blamed higher utility bills and food prices.

Food price inflation could hit 5.5% this year, an increase driven by poor harvests, some expensive packaging regulations as well as higher employment costs arising from the Autumn Budget.

When pressed by Sky News on the main contributor to that increase – poor harvests or government policy – the governor said: “It’s about 50-50.”

The Bank doesn’t like to get political but nothing about this is flattering for the chancellor.

The Bank said food retailers, including supermarkets, were passing on higher national insurance and living wage costs – the ones announced in the Autumn Budget – to customers.

Economists at the Bank pointed out that food retailers employ a large proportion of low wage workers and are more vulnerable to the lowering of the national insurance threshold because they have a larger proportion of part-time workers.

The danger doesn’t end there.

Of all the types of inflation, food price inflation is among the most dangerous.

Households spend 11% of their disposable income, meaning higher food price inflation can play an outsized role in our perception of how high overall inflation in the economy is.

When that happens, workers are more likely to push for pay rises, a dangerous loop that can lead to higher inflation.

So while the chancellor is publicly celebrating the Bank’s fifth interest rate cut in a year, behind the scenes she will have very little to cheer.

Business

Bank of England issues inflation warning but cuts interest rate to 4%

Published

23 hours ago

August 7, 2025

admin

Bank of England issues inflation warning but cuts interest rate to 4%

The Bank of England has cut the interest rate for the fifth time in a year to 4% but warned that climbing food prices will cause inflation to jump higher in 2025.

In a tight decision that saw members of the rate-setting committee vote twice to break a deadlock, the Bank cut the rate to the lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Households on a variable mortgage of about £140,000 will save about £30 a month.

Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, said: “We’ve cut interest rates today, but it was a finely balanced decision. Interest rates are still on a downward path, but any future cuts will need to be made gradually and carefully.”

Money latest: What interest rate cut means for savers and borrowers

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), the nine-member panel that sets the base interest rate, voted in favour of lowering borrowing costs by 0.25 percentage points.

However, rate-setters failed to reach a unanimous decision, with four members of the committee voting to keep it on hold and another four voting for a 0.25 percentage point cut.

Alan Taylor, an external member of the committee, initially called for a larger 0.5 percentage point cut but after a second vote reduced that to 0.25% to break the deadlock. Had they failed to reach a decision, Mr Bailey, the governor, would have had the decisive vote.

It is the first time the committee has gone to a second vote and highlights the difficulty policymakers face in navigating the current economic climate, in which economic growth is stagnating, with at least one rate-setter fearing a recession, but inflation remains persistent.

Although the central bank voted to cut borrowing costs, it also raised its inflation forecasts on the back of higher food prices.

The bank predicted that the headline rate of inflation would hit 4% in September, up from a previous estimate of 3.75%.

The September inflation rate is used to uprate a range of benefits, including pensions.

The increase was driven by food, where the inflation rate could hit 5.5% this year. About a tenth of household spending is devoted to food shopping, which means it can have an outsized impact on inflation.

The Bank said this risked creating “second round effects”, whereby a sense of higher inflation forces people to push for pay rises, which could push inflation even higher.

Economists at the Bank blamed poor harvests, weather conditions, and changes to packaging regulations but also, in a blow to the chancellor, higher labour costs.

It pointed out that a higher proportion of workers in the food retail sector are paid the national living wage, which Rachel Reeves increased by 6.7% in April.

Economists at the Bank also blamed higher employment taxes announced in the autumn budget. “Furthermore, overall labour costs of supermarkets are likely to have been disproportionately affected by the lower threshold at which employers start paying NICs… these material increases in labour costs are likely to have pushed up food prices.”

There is also evidence that employers’ national insurance increases are causing businesses to curtail hiring, the Bank said. It comes as unemployment in the UK rose unexpectedly to a fresh four-year high of 4.7% in May. Separate data shows the number of employees on payroll has contracted for the fifth month in a row,

The Bank said the unemployment rate could hit 5% next year and warned of “subdued” economic growth, with one member – Alan Taylor – warning of an “increased risk of recession” in the coming years.