According to Ofgem, Britain has one of the most reliable gas systems in the world, with supplies coming from North Sea gas fields and from imports.
If sources of gas have been sufficient up to now – and remain so – then do we need another UK source from shale reserves?
The question to last week’s poll was predicated by Cuadrilla’s successful horizontal drilling operation at its site in Preston New Road, Lancs. Francis Egan, Cuadrilla CEO, said: ‘Natural gas will flow into this horizontal well in commercially viable quantities demonstrating that the UK’s huge shale gas resources can be safely produced and contribute to improving the UK’s energy security.’
Of the 1126 respondents, 38 per cent thought that current gas supply arrangements are sufficient, followed by 28 per cent who took the opposite view and agreed that there’s an urgent need for a home grown source of natural gas.
A quarter of respondents weren’t necessarily opposed to fracking for shale gas, but thought that non-fossil fuel sources of energy should be prioritised.
The remaining nine per cent of respondents chose ‘none of the above’.
The poll has so far drawn 72 responses via Comments, including this one from Michael Morley, who said: ‘Fracking is yesterday’s news – it’s not the future. Our dependence on fossil fuels has caused almost irreparable damage to both the environment and ourselves.’
John was similarly unimpressed, stating: ‘The case for fossil fuels is now weak. Fracking has caused enormous pollution and health problems everywhere it has happened. We are in default on all current emissions levels and now need fresh impetus on renewable energy.’
Cliff Perkins added: ‘Fracking should be carefully regulated on a trial basis by government for the benefit of all and not sold-out either to commercial interests or pressure groups. A mixed source indigenous energy supply is required that will fill the gaps when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining. The true costs, risks and benefits should be weighed.’
Taking a wider view of the poll options, David O said: ‘You could make a valid case for all of these responses. However, for me natural gas is a strategic resource and will be for the foreseeable future, therefore continuity and price stability of supply are critical to domestic and industrial sectors.’
What do you think? Let us know using Comments below.
Putin’s puppets coming out to vote in force! Our energy situation is becoming critical and any indigenous gas sources should be exploited.
A further warning to future responders: ‘Putin’s puppets’ is skating very close to an ad hominem attack.
Not really. Calling someonde a puppet of a dictator with links to organised crime is insulting, and we’d stated we won’t tolerate insults.
No such intended. I prefer science and logic. However, puppets don’t know they are puppets – no intention so no guilt. They are not bad people – just gullible (as so many of the responders demonstrate – there is a shed load of false news).
Promise to be nicer in future.
This is not merely a question of fuel energy source – though further safeguarding of this in light of threats from Russia and other states is necessary – but also one of petrochemical feedstock. Shale gas has transformed petrochemicals in the USA and we should not disadvantage our [small] petrochemical industry’s development by turning our back on this opportunity
The worldwide Petrochemical industry is in decline due to a fall in demand. As we move closer to climate change goals and increase energy production from renewable sources this decline will continue and there will be no need to exploit hazardous and polluting Shale Gas resources.
If you doubt the decline of the industry just look at the increasing numbers of institutional investors and Sovereign Wealth Funds withdrawing from their Petrochemical Sector investments.
It would appear the author of this piece is anti HF as he posts only facts against the process and nothing for it, such as energy independence and the potential prosperity that comes from a large scale industry such as this.
Apparently Mr Williams did not read the comments in the article about how fracking has opened up new sources of low-cost gas in the US, and has ignored several mentions of energy security in the article.
Neil. There are no benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. Most of the US companies are loss making and international gas prices continue to fall as demand reduces.
In respect of Energy Independence, Greg Clarke, the business secretary has recently announced the UK Govt does not see the need for Shale Gas to support our Energy Requirements.
The only beneficiary of Shale Gas extraction will be PLASTICS giant INEOS who will use the Ethane Gas to make more brand new plastics to dump on the world markets at a time when we should be looking at recycling.
Gas demand is expected to rise by 1.6% a year up to 2035.
LNG growth, driven by increasing supplies in Australia and the US, is expected to lead to a globally integrated gas market anchored by US gas prices.
Ethane only accounts for approximately 5% of UK Natural gas, early indications show that UK Shale gas will be a higher purity Methane and less Ethane than we are used to.
As for Greg Clark how can he make a valid statement on Shale gas until wells are flow tested to see if the gas can be extracted at commercially viable rates?
Your headline question is on the need for shale fracking. But the poll questions are skewed to obscure the answer. Your commentary rehashes the technology and the polarised views but then suggests the topic is security of gas supply. Somewhat mixed messages which lead to inconclusive result.
It’s difficult to see how answers beginning Yes, No and Maybe obscure the answer or are skewed. Mr Cotterel’s point is itself obscure.
You could make a valid case for all of these responses. However for me Natural Gas is a strategic resource and will be for the foreseeable future, therefore continuity and price stability of supply are critical to domestic and industrial sectors. Much of Europe consumes gas from Russia, should that be interrupted then availability and price would very quickly become an issue irrespective of our current source. We should develop our own resource if practical and safe
As a country we need energy security, even purchasing our energy from ‘friendly’ suppliers leaves the economy vulnerable to price changes outside the nation’s control. Since the mines were closed down we have become more and more dependant on external energy sources, and subsequently more vulnerable to energy problems.
I don’t believe fracking is a good long term solution, the issues reported from the US with where the water supply has become contaminated may be replicated here, and with a dwindling supply of potable water, if a major contamination of ground water occurred we would be in horrible difficulties.
The real focus must be on renewable energy sources, we are an island nation, we should be using hydro in any and all possible modes. Wind has inherent limitations, but like water is not something we are likely to use up, combine the two and we have a sustainable solution, diverting focus and energy from building a renewable energy base for the UK, into producing energy which is not sustainable will be another fail for the UK energy security.
We are a heat treatment company that rely on energy (particularly natural gas) to process automotive and construction products on behalf of our customers. We have had to secure supply to 2020 in an effort to maintain some cost stability though this is at a premium unfortunately. Automotive ethos is Year on year price reduction and without security of our own supply we have seen the volatility when resources become scarce with the last event tripling the day ahead price and forced a number of companies in our industry out of business. Fracking is a cost effective method of gas extraction and our autonomy of supply is essential. What will happen if Russia restrict supply to Europe do you think Norway will ignore the supply and demand situation and not divert volume for commercial gain??? Where will that leave the UK then. Security of supply and the commercial security is essential and we are then not exposed to market forces. It may then in turn generate income for investment in infrastructure and essential services such as NHS.
Fracking is such a cumbersome and potentially troublesome way of exploiting unconventional oil & gas deposits. There are smarter ways than blasting the formations and hoping to contain what is effectively a ‘train wreck’.
Well said..
There are plenty of clean non polluting alternatives such as Solar, Wind and Waves. It does not make sense to risk peoples health and our environment just so a few speculators and bankers can make a lot of money at the expense of our health and environment.
Look at the figures! Renewables contributed around 1% of our total energy demand last year. Without fossil fuel, it’s back to the stone age quickish.
There is hope however in the form of nuclear power from Uranium, possibly Thorium and in the longer term Fusion but, in the meantime, we have perhaps a 30 year gap to fill and only fossil fuels meet the bill.
Hi Bill. The figures I’ve looked at state 29% of energy in 2017 came from renewables. Can I ask what the 1% you mention represents?
As a percentage of electricity generated perhaps (although I think 29% is rather too high) but you have ignored the fuel used for transport, heating our homes and so on. As a percentage of total energy use, 1% is closer to the truth.
The mix for UK electricity generation is Renewables 24.4%
Gas 42.4%
Coal 9.1%
Nuclear 21.2%
Oil & other 2.9%
Don’t forget that electricity only accounts for 20% of our energy requirements.
On the World stage, renewable energy supplies a fraction over 1% of the energy requirement.
I suppose if you’re a fan of Nigel Lawson, you’ll already have made up your mind that anthropogenic climate change is impossible. For the rest of us, who aren’t in agreement with Mr Lawson, the reality is that we have to quickly find alternatives to fossil fuels. The whole issue of fracking is purely political.
I’m not a fan of anyone or anything except science and logical thought. I have studied the literature and the arguments for some years – yes, there is some warming – no, there is unlikely to be the sort of catastrophic warming that the zealots attempt to scare us with. Take some time, study the data and then make up your own mind.
Where the gas comes from doesn’t make much difference to global warming. In fact, fracking will have lower emissions than imported gas.
The need to restore domestic energy security has never been greater. If we go beyond the obvious geopolitical threats we are facing and look as the cooling earth cycle we are now in. It clearly shows we will need clean burn fossil fuel for the next two decades at least to avoid people dying from hypothermia in our increasingly cold and longer winters ahead.
Mr Church.
I refer you to the very latest statements of fact by Business Sectretary Greg Clarke which confirms the UK has energy security and is not reliant on Russia for our gas supply.
In addition our commitments to Climate Change treaties underlines the continued reduction of fossil fuel use and the expansion of renewables as well as constinued energy efficiency means we will not need any new source of gas supply – Ever.
Paul. Some 43% of the gas we use is UK produced and the balance imported including a substantial chunk from Russia. Check your fact please.
If you ignore the fact that over 40% of the gas in the European distribution system is from Russia and state that we are not reliant on Russian gas.
How do you explain Centrica’s deal with Russian gas company Gazprom, which will roughly supply 9% of our gas requirements until 2021?
Fracking should be carefully regulated on a trial basis by Government for the benefit of all and not sold-out either to commercial interests or pressure groups. A mixed source indigenous energy supply is required that will fill the gaps when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining. The true costs, risks and benefits should be weighed.
Is there a need for a natural gas source in the UK- yes, but not if we are just going to burn it for heat in CHP systems. A source of simple and complex hydrocarbons is necessary for our chemical industry and we are beholden to politics and ‘the market’ for our current needs, having frittered away North Sea gas and given the benefits away in tax cuts. For our gas security, we should perform small-scale fracking, in much the same way as we use geothermal energy, but don’t waste it on heating. We should be investing in Thorium reactors which are self-perpetuating and do not produce long-term waste, so that we can save this precious irreplaceable resource.
Thank you Paul Evans, I was wondering how to put that exact sentiment. How can we as a nation reduce our use of fossil fuels and yet say we need more? We don’t, we are gas sufficient from the southern North Sea alone, other gas fields supply a surplus that gets sold into Europe, some of which we buy back when there is a high demand (winter).
Whilst we all would like UK Energy to be renewable and to be reasonably priced this is currently NOT possible. Many UK readers of Engineer seem to be happy for the UK to be buying fossil fuels from abroad. We are already £1.7 Trillion in debt!
We should continue developing Renewables (12% UK Electricity)) but we must be aware that at night when there is no Solar and when there is no air movement, the Wind Turbines stop turning. We then expect other sources of Energy to work for us .
Nuclear is off the menu apart from Hinkley Point. Whilst US Fracking was initially dangerous it is now safer. UK Fracking should be a stop gap to be turned on and off.
My understanding is that UK Electricity is currently supplied by over 30% of Gas supplies coming from outside the UK??
Fracking is totally the wrong approach for many reasons.
Fracking continues our dependence on fossil fuels and opens us up to the danger of polluting our water supplies with carcinogenic chemicals, which could take decades to reverse. Also, ‘New Scientist’ estimate that it will take at least 10 years for the UK to produce a meaningful amount of shale gas, so if this goes ahead what happens in the mean time ?
The UK is already failing to meet air quality standards that it is estimated is leading to 30,000-50,000 deaths per year, so why are we pushing another pollution source ?
The only viable clean baseline energy source that provides energy security is Nuclear, that’s where investment should be going. Not into more dirty energy sources.
Please don’t take New Scientist as an authority. In my opinion this once fine magazine has dumbed down to what is now a journalistic sensationalist PC rag. I stopped subscribing years ago and also to Scientific American for the same reason.
As for pollution, take a look at the DEFRA graph of pollutants over the period 1970 – 2015. Don’t know how old you are Steve but in the 1950s and 1960s they really knew how to make pollution – that’s when you have to have your passenger walk in front of your car with a white handkerchief
to show the way. The pollution was so bad that you could taste it.
Only chemicals that are classed as non harmful to water and which have been approved by the Environment Agency are allowed for fracking in the UK.
The switch from Coal to gas powered electricity generation has cut the UK’s Carbon dioxide emissions by over 25%. In real terms that means the UK now emits 1% of the World’s man made Carbon dioxide emissions.
The case for fossil fuels is now weak. Fracking has caused enormous pollution and health problems everywhere it has happened. We are in default on all current emissions levels and now need fresh impetus on renewable energy. We are surrounded by water, and have many rivers which could provide hydro power. Solar power is getting better by the day. The next generation of solar panels promises to be able produce electricity from rainfall running off the panels, so has the potential for 24hrs power production.
Nevertheless, the UK will need gas for decades to come. Russian gas, LNG, or fracked gas?
As for solar panels producing power from rainfall, you obviously haven’t done the maths.
Just checked the date, in case I had miss read 10 for 1,
I think the Skripal poisoning has highlighted the need for fracking. The UK really needs to set itself a target of eliminating gas imports by 2030. Most of this will come from efficiencies, but fracking has a role to play.
Of course it has to be done carefully. But when it comes to CO2 emissions, fracked gas is cleaner than the imported alternatives – especially LNG.
Fracking is yesterday’s news – it’s not the future. Our dependence on fossil fuels has caused almost irreparable damage to both the environment and ourselves, particularly those exposed to leaded petrol fumes. I propose the wide adoption of another hydrogen carrier such as non-toxic ammonia (NH4). A recent article on an electric car powered by a potentially revolutionary flow battery has received remarkably little attention from the press. The powerful and wealthy clearly want the interests of Big Oil to win out at our expense…future generations will never forgive us.
Please cite the sources of your claims (papers or other publications).
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20161010-driving-the-saltwater-sports-car?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/urine-power-hydrogen-produced-urea-run-cars-houses-article-1.429151
Have a read, I don’t think Mr Morley is wrong.
Ammonia is both caustic and toxic in its concentrated form. It is classified as a hazardous substance, and is subject to strict reporting and regulation requirements by facilities which produce, store, or use it in significant quantities.
Around 200 million tons of Ammonia is manufactured worldwide each year, over 90% of which is manufactured by steam reforming of Methane.
Don’t know what you mean – have you heard of carbon capture from a point source? Ammonia is hazardous but mix with enough water and it can be relatively safe to store. Urea is the best example of a naturally occurring hydrogen carrier that is non-toxic to life, easy to store and electrolyse – if you believe the above article as I do. Only the blinkered would say ‘no’ without looking at the evidence. Oil companies (and the governments) do not invest in technologies that would massively reduce dependence on oil… that is very clear to me.
As an individual who works in the Oil and Gas industry I may be biased, but compared to the cost and risks associated with offshore (any country) gas or oil development fracking certainly represents a more economic alternative. It is not just pure economics think of the environmental impact of an offshore rig or vessel which constantly has at least two support vessels constantly on re-supply, crew and equipment changes and the CO2 output of these vessels alone.
Cost wise I’ve just worked a 14 well project (offshore) which our equipment alone was close to half a billion. The installation vessels and platform upgrade costs far outweighed our small! scope of work. Some-one has to pay for this i.e. you and me in our energy prices!
Fracking represents a cost effective expansion of UK gas reserves, and has been in place for many years globally both onshore and offshore. Most of the ‘scare factor’ was down to the early development years of the process. Much the same as in any industry (think jet age and the plight of the Comet!).
Based on what data Geoff? I have not read a single report or estimate that believes that fracked gas can be extracted at a cost that is less than the wholesale gas price. I’d really like to see some robust data that suggests otherwise.
If you ask the question, would you like fracking to happen on your doorstep? I suspect most people would say NO. However if we were to be held to ransom by say Russia then maybe fracking does not seem so bad. Technological advances may well make this a more safer option than has been the case previously. I think we should continue to have this technology but only use it when necessary. We know we have massive coal reserves and we may also have large gas fields beneath us lets keep our reserves for when the rainy days come.
No, but not because current arrangements are sufficient. Rather it is the uncertain nature of the outcomes, such as pollution and complete lack of mitigation arrangements if something goes wrong, coupled with the usual lack of accountability and resolution from private companies, who are only after short term profits. Once a problem or serious geological consequence occurs it will be far too late to do anything about it! Fukoshima, Chernobyl, are recent examples. (And yes these were nuclear incidents but the principle of consequences applies).
A worthy subject, but your poll allows anyone to vote as many times as the can find the time to sit and press a button, so it is hardly representative? For a poll to be worth its salt it should be set up properly to give a really representative result.
Good point Maureen, should have spotted that.
The way things are looking with Putin the more independent we can become the better, we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best, Putin could close us down with the flick of a switch, No need for expensive wars just hit the switch and wait & successive governments have fuelled this by selling all our assets to meet their inflated salaries & gold plated pensions.
We do not rely upon Russia for our gas. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-less-than-1-per-cent-uk-gas-supplies-come-from-russia
About 10% of the UK’s gas comes from Russia, mostly branded as Dutch gas. Centrica has recently made a deal to directly import Russian gas, so the figure should rise.
Either way, the UK is part of the single European gas market, which gets over 30% of its gas from Russia.
Whilst I would whole heartedly support alternative energy sources and it is great that someone said we are now getting 50% of our energy that way, I believe that we must maintain a solid base of controllable energy supply and because the world has turned against nuclear (fools) then the current type of power station has to remain. I have been a sailor for some 50 years and can easily remember long hot summers and cold winters without a breath of wind, even a long way out at sea. Until such time as we have really long term energy storage, for at the very least a whole winters night, and some real major commitment to tidal power we must be able to keep a basic power supply and preferably fueled from our own resources.
As regards to energy security and the current, fact free, anti Russia bias, I am surprised that supposedly intelligent engineers cannot see the potential issues with jumping into bed with the US gas and oil industry.
Again this is not so much about the fracking for gas, as protecting the trillions of dollars of oil, gas and nuclear infrastructure. People are debating whether to have individual renewable energy sources instead of looking at all the various types of renewable energy as a whole. they all have limitations but there are ways of minimizing those limitations, but it costs money. If renewable energy had as much money spent on it as the accepted methods, the problems would be solved, and not just short term but for years to come in the future. The other issue is promoting inventions of other renewable energies and new proposed renewables. There is no money for inventors and hostility by the establishment to inventors receiving research and development funding, Why? Fracking has many known issues, why would you go down that path until these issues are evaluated and solved?
Can we just clear up a small point: the word(s) investment and stock exchange are very strange bed-fellows.Indeed they were divorced long ago! The Stock Exchange is simply betting on a horse-race in which only the jockeys move: and they only side to side. UPs and DOWNs in price are the result of PR puffs in the meja…and ‘research’ by those seeking to make money from trading in ‘our’ shares -they benefit whether the shares go up or down: like far too many these persons have cleverly insulated themselves from their errors.
It will change dramatically when the lights start to go out! And that is quite soon.
But the grocer’s daughter (is that OK) and her ilk deliberately allowed the vast investment in coal and its mining – the one absolutely protected and protect able and almost limitless resource we do have to be dissipated and amazingly, in view of their expressed wish to safeguard our Nation’s future, allowed this to be deliberately destroyed by neglect. A dash for Gas, and flogging the 50 year (that s all we have) oil stuff to pay for (it would be nice to think of a Sovereign Wealth (welfare) fund but actually dividends and benefits to the few… is that thinking what’s Left?
I have nothing against grocers. I’ve been known to buy groceries.
DUH!! https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630722/Energy_Flow_Chart_2016.pdf
Working within the oil & gas industry, I always have a little chuckle when the 20years or 50 years of supply left is stated. While it is true that at current consumption estimates the UK has about 50 years of oil and gas left, this is based on no more wells being drilled and a year on year rise in usage of 5%. However, in the mid 70’s we only had 20 years of North Sea gas left, this figure again raised its head in the 80’s, 90’s and noughties, we didn’t run out. ‘We’ drilled more wells and got better at extraction. the current usage trend is also down, possible due to renewables and a smaller more economic (in fuel usage) manufacturing base. How this changes post Brexit is anyone’s guess.
I plumped for the third option (expansion of non-fossil fuel energy sources should be the priority)
but would like to have other net CO2 emitting technologies included (much biogas).
Unfortunately (as shown in the US) renewable seem to be supported by those looking to use gas, as a way of getting cheap energy – so are linked. And , if this Lawson approach is used, then the cheap fracking gas is required to support the growth in renewables. ;-{
I notice there was a mention of lack of funding for R&D. It is not necessarily true that pouring large amounts of money brings rapid success (such as for Fusion) and one could argue that the suppliers of certain renewables decry alternative technologies (eg vertical or horizontal axis windmills). However it does seem that R&D for possible technologies is being neglected (wave power, cheap nuclear…) but that is an argument about research councils looking for “impact” and “picking winners” (or the favourites as I like think)… which is effectively a hostility…(?).
I remember, some years ago, talking to CEGB engineers – and they had a very broad and catholic understanding & interest (and basic research) in generating technologies.
Well Jullan, research councils are often run by clueless non-scientists…I find that many people have misconceptions about technology and what is possible. There are alternatives to fossil fuels (other energy storage mediums) but they do cost a little more money especially now in the beginning. I only hope that future generations can forgive us for our blatant disregard their health. Maybe we were all brain damaged from all the lead floating around throughout much of the 20th century.
Like.
I think certain breads of academic managers also push the idea of research as a University thing – rather than the history reality of industrial (even basic) research.
I personally think that (thermal) energy storage is a good opportunity, but very limited UK research ;-{{
http://biznesalert.com/leak-ec-knows-gazprom-abuses-there-will-be-no-consequences/
In the brave post Brexit world GBPLC will need every ounce of wealth, experience, knowledge, energy and entrepreneurism it can muster.
We should be learning how to go after our shale energy now.
We should be at the forefront of the shale energy industry, not left behind.
Let’s find out how to get this stuff out economically, efficiently and as environmentally sustainably as possible.
Then we can sell our knowledge, develop our industry and add to our GDP.
Frac on!
I recall going out for a walk after Christmas dinner one year, with our dog walking in front of us -we could see his tail standing up but his body was completely fog covered. Yes, these were proper fogs. Indeed it was almost as bad in the cinema with cigarette smoke. How in heavens name did any of us oldies survive.
I assume that Neil Williams is an engineer, maybe wrongly, but his belief in politicians statements is commendable: politicians do not lie but do not tell the whole story either. The UK has reduced its gas storage (closed Rough field), in my opinion a badly judged move to save some money, and is dependent upon overseas suppliers of gas, including recently an emergency delivery of Russian LNG! In the next few years our dependence will increase as the de-carbonisation requires more and more natural gas to maintain any power security level and the UK has virtually no energy storage, asused to be offered with coal at power stations.
There are a number of potential issues as competition for natural gas increases and possibly Holland starts to close Groningen field. The UK’s only real hopes are fracking and LNG trade if any industry is to remain long-term: CCGT power stations will have to be built pdq to keep the lights on even without the electric car issues and converting to hydrogen for domestic use.
Why go to the trouble of fracking? It’s costly with – so far in the UK – no return. Try Pyrolysis. The raw materials are freely available and with China shutting down imports of waste others will want their plastics taken off them too.
Perhaps we should look at the geology? BGS has looked at the shale/fracking issue & has much public material available. To simplify its long reports, it pretty much says that fracking is possible & viable in the UK, but at a much smaller scale than all the hype. The age (or lack of) of most of our rock layers, means that fracking will only be suitable on a small scale in a few places.
For the sake of our energy independence (& to help the trade gap), we should do small scale fracking, but we are not going to be the next Saudi Arabia. That is hype by speculators wanting to sell out to gullible investors, before they realise how little is viable to recover.
PS. Came across a 2008 article by Milliband (remember him?) energy minister at the time. He said that Britain was about to get a major gas storage site in the Irish Sea & another in Devon. Why did that not happen? We would be a lot more secure against a Winter “Beast from the East” if we had that storage.
None of the above: No, because we must bring fossil fuels use to zero, fast. Today we have a global atmospheric CO2 ppm of 408, compared to a 400,000 years trend that never surpassed 300 until 1950s. CH4 is on the same life threatening path.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
How much does Ofgem consider to be sustaining level for the whole biosphere? How will UK achieve its commitments to the Paris Agreement on climate change if it continues to expand into fossil fuel based energy?
If sustaining the biosphere is not a convincing argument, for some strange reason, how about the economic arguments? Why would UK add to the value of stranded assets of its fossil fuel industry? What does that mean? It means that fossil fuels become worthless, as they cannot be burned as the world finally works to bring CO2 ppm down to 350 or ideally 300. More financials here:
https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/