Energy Magazine Category: International

Paul Cheliak, Vice President of Strategy and Delivery at the Canadian Gas Association, speaks with Andrea Stegher, Senior Advisor at SNAM and President of the IGU. They reflect on Andrea’s career in the gas industry, major shifts in global energy systems, Italy’s resilience strategy through infrastructure and diversification, and Canada’s role in ensuring a secure energy future. 

The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. 

You’ve been involved in the gas energy industry for several years — what led you to pursue a career in this sector, and what significant changes have you observed throughout your time?

Andrea Stegher: Thanks for the question, Paul — it made me realize this year [2025] will be 30 years since I graduated from university. At that time, I had no idea that the energy industry even existed! By chance, I joined a Master’s program in managerial economics run by ENI in Italy, and that truly changed the course of my life. 

I began in upstream at ENI, working on energy scenario analysis, then shifted into market liberalization in the late ’90s — helping turn underground gas storage into a profitable business unit. Over the years, I’ve worked in regulation, commercial strategy, and business development. 

Later, I joined Snam, Europe’s leading gas infrastructure company, where I initially took on infrastructure development responsibilities — including hydraulic simulations and capacity planning, which was quite a leap from my economist training. Among many other things, around 2015, I even worked to establish a pilot plant for what we now call e-methane — then referred to as Power-to-Gas (P2G). 

It’s been a career filled with challenges and diverse experiences. But if there’s one constant over the last 30 years, it’s change. That’s very much part of this industry’s DNA or, at least, it’s consistent with my experience. We’re always striving to improve, and naturally, that means pushing the boundaries now and then to figure out how we can do things better. And that’s what has kept the work so engaging, I’m genuinely excited to continue. 

Paul Cheliak  
Talking about constant change, given the significant geopolitical shifts we’re seeing around the world — from the Americas to Europe and the Middle East — how do you see natural gas and LNG fitting into the evolving conversation on global energy security? 

Andrea Stegher: That’s a very timely and important question. We’re not only seeing growing geopolitical tensions, particularly in Europe and East Mediterranean, but also a broader structural shift in how we think about energy. In the past, we looked at gas in isolation — today, we see it as part of a much more integrated, global energy system. 

Gas markets have evolved from regional to global, with LNG becoming a key connector between continents. That global integration brings opportunity, but also complexity and, in some cases, fragility. The 2022 energy crisis showed just how critical optionality and supply diversification are. Had that crisis occurred five years earlier, before the LNG infrastructure was in place, Europe’s situation would have been much worse. 

So, while geopolitics is front and centre, the fundamentals still matter: long-term investment, security of supply, affordability, and climate responsibility. These pillars must be balanced. Natural gas — and LNG in particular — continues to play a vital role in delivering energy security, enabling flexibility, and supporting transitions through technologies like biomethane and hydrogen. 

Ultimately, we need to stay focused on maintaining a resilient energy system. Gas remains essential — meeting around 30% of global energy demand growth last year — and we shouldn’t be shy about the value this industry brings to consumers around the world. 

Paul Cheliak: What role does gas energy play in Italy today and into the future? Both domestically and internationally.

Andrea Stegher: Many are not aware of this fact, but Italy had large domestic production, which was very substantial in the middle of the last century, and Italy was key to creating the first gas link of Western Europe to the Soviet Union, enabling the Soviet Union to send gas to Europe.  

In short, Italy has been a gas country for many decades, and it’s still very much relying on gas, which is meeting about 40% of our energy needs. We have a significant number of combined-cycle gas plants, a strong industrial base, and more than 20 million households relying on natural gas in a relatively small country. If you look at the map, Italy is compact compared to Canada, which has a slightly smaller population but a vast amount of land. Yet in Italy, we operate 300,000 kilometres of gas pipelines. To put that into perspective, our national highway network is only about 8,000 kilometres.  

Italy has long been heavily reliant on Russian gas, but we have also maintained strong connections with Algeria, as our guiding principle on energy has been diversification. We had a clear need to protect the consumers by investing in infrastructure development, which has made our energy system resilient to many conditions. For example, a few years back in Milan, where I live, temperatures would go down to -15 °C — that kind of cold would have posed serious challenges without gas, and it compelled us to act quickly and invest in infrastructure.  

Flexibility has also played an important role in building resilience, supported by a very strong network of underground gas storage capacity that plays a critical role in ensuring a continuous supply during our seasonal demand swing — our peak winter consumption is four to five times higher than in summer. This kind of demand would be difficult to manage through electrification alone, which comes with a lot of complexity and costs.  

Italy has different pipeline entry points, Algeria, Libya — though Libya faces political challenges — and a recent addition from Azerbaijan. And I am proud of my contributions to creating the Southern Gas corridor in my capacity in the past.  

Since 2022, we’ve expanded our regasification capacity — a critical step in strengthening our energy infrastructure. But regasification terminals alone aren’t enough; they need a steady supply. That’s why it’s so important for more producers to enter the market. Diversification has proven essential. Before 2022, Italy relied on Russia for up to 40% of its gas and, considering that Italy imports 97% of the gas it consumes, reducing dependency on a single supplier is vital for energy security. 

Italy is uniquely positioned geographically. Let me be Italian for a second and put it another way, we are right at the center of the Mediterranean. This allows us an opportunity to become an energy hub, not just for imports but also for exports. We’ve already developed reverse flow capacity that allows us to move gas from the country into northern Europe, something we couldn’t have imagined 15 years ago. In fact, we even exported gas to Austria recently. 

Looking ahead, this infrastructure could also support new molecules, like hydrogen, especially if developments in North Africa scale up. So again, our goal remains twofold: to continue serving today’s energy needs with no interruptions and to prepare for a sustainable, diversified energy future.  

Paul Cheliak: As you prepare to take on the role of President of the International Gas Union, what opportunities or developments are you most looking forward to? 

Andrea Stegher: First and foremost, the excitement is to serve an industry that I’ve known for many, many years. Our industry has a lot of credibility, and we can draw on impressive facts and figures to substantiate it. I think that’s where the IGU can do a lot more to support its members and represent all stakeholders, be it policy makers, financial institutions, and the next generation of young energy professionals. We tend to forget how important it is to give back and share what we have learned.   

I think also a part of the excitement is to serve a global organization like IGU which, according to me, is like a 100-year-old startup. IGU was founded in 1931, so it boasts a very rich history, but it’s still an organization that is constantly evolving. As such, we have recently published the IGU Manifesto, which sets a clear direction for our work and reinforces our role as a credible and meaningful voice on gas and energy at large. 

One more thing I’d like to amplify is the wealth of competencies and expertise within the industry and within the IGU committees. I believe we can do more to amplify this and position the IGU as a great gateway to share knowledge and insights across the global energy community. 

Paul Cheliak: Let’s talk about technology — it’s an ever-changing landscape. What should the utilities do to stay responsive to the changing technological needs and consumer demands? 

Andrea Stegher: This is a very important element. I think maybe it’s not very well known, so to speak, the fact that in Italy we have 99% of consumers using smart gas meters. We’re also now looking at AI, digital mapping of our infrastructure, and there’s, of course, cybersecurity. So, it’s safe to say there are many ways technology is deeply embedded into our industry.  

Technology also extends to the development of new molecules and systems, such as carbon capture and storage. It is now essential to change the landscape and create new value chains. Therefore, creating pricing mechanisms of CO2, whether it’s explicit or shadow pricing, to make business cases that are meaningful for developing these new avenues. 

Understanding what the customer needs is just as important as the infrastructure we build. While we are very proud of the value chain we represent, we sometimes overlook the consumers. It is always important to acknowledge that we are here to serve their needs, and that’s where technology plays a critical role in helping to meet those needs.

Paul Cheliak: As you know, Canada is hosting the G7 this year, at a critical moment, not only in Canada-US relations but also in Canada-Europe relations and Canada-global relations. How should Canada position itself on energy and natural gas? And what lessons can we draw from Italy’s experience hosting the G7 under its presidency? 

Andrea Stegher: The developments of recent years have clearly underscored the important role gas plays at the G7 level. In an increasingly volatile and uncertain global landscape, energy security has become a central concern. For example, in countries like Italy, which lacks sufficient domestic resources, this has meant investing in infrastructure and pursuing greater diversification of supply. But this is not just Italy’s challenge — it’s also a call for countries with domestic resources to support broader development efforts and foster international energy connections. 

When discussing forums like the G7 and G20, another critical priority is fostering inclusion rather than fragmentation. The G7 has a unique opportunity — and responsibility — to engage more meaningfully with the other G20 members. We must avoid limiting key discussions to a narrow set of voices. Instead, we should broaden the dialogue and build stronger connections across regions and economies. 

Diverse perspectives are essential to every G7 conversation — and that’s where we believe IGU can play a constructive role. At the International Gas Union, we’re committed to contribute to this effort by offering a clearer, more global understanding of the gas energy landscape. Our focus is on how gas can support both immediate energy security needs and the long-term innovation required for the future.  

Paul Cheliak: Let’s finish with a question for you, Andrea, about Canada. What advice do you have for us as we consider our future in energy as a country? 

Andrea Stegher: Well, for sure, you have important challenges in terms of population density. There are many opportunities to access resources, and I believe you have extensive infrastructure to meet consumer needs.  

Furthermore, I believe Canada has an opportunity to position itself more strongly on the international stage. While maintaining a close relationship with the United States is, of course, essential — especially given the two-way nature of gas trade — there is also room to broaden Canada’s global engagement. With its significant energy resources, Canada can play a stabilizing role in global markets. As I mentioned earlier, volatility remains a key issue, and global energy demand continues to grow. That’s why it’s so important to invest in sustainable infrastructure and develop resources that can meet future needs effectively. 

Years ago, I encouraged my Italian colleagues to rethink the global map with Asia at the center, rather than Europe — a shift in perspective that helps us better understand how different regions can contribute to development, human progress, and social advancement. I believe Canada, with its capacity and values, has a strong role to play in that broader vision. 

Paul Cheliak: Thank you very much for your time, Andrea.

Poland’s new Ambassador to Canada Witold Dzielski sat down with the Canadian Gas Association to discuss the energy needs of Europe and how Canada’s energy sector can support global energy security. The interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

Canadian Gas Association (CGA): Thanks for joining us today, Ambassador Dzielski. Can you please tell me a little bit about yourself and what was your journey to your current position as the Ambassador of Poland?

Ambassador Dzielski (Ambassador): I come from the civic society world and so I am not a typical career diplomat in that regard. I was always fascinated by civic diplomacy, and this is something that remained with me. I moved on to diplomacy at the government level and went through different stages. I was posted for five years at the Polish Embassy in Washington, D.C. I worked for the foreign ministry and later moved on to the presidential chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland, where for six years I served as the Director of the foreign office. After that, I moved here to Canada to become the new Polish Ambassador.

CGA: Canada has a long-standing relationship with Poland – what shared values do you see between the two countries?

Ambassador: Poland and Canada share many values and those of the highest priority to Poland are freedom, independence, sovereignty, and the right of countries to self-determination. We value these principles because of our difficult history and as many Canadians know, the history of Poland was quite tumultuous, filled with wars, and fighting for independence. Therefore, freedom is something that Polish people cherish, especially today when we are faced with yet another Russian aggression. In Europe, we value the commitment and the shared principles that we have with Canada.

CGA: You mentioned a lot of important things and there is one other important aspect that is related to this war, which is energy. What are the sources of energy that Poland relies on?

Ambassador: The energy mix in Poland is becoming more diverse every year. Historically, after fighting the Communist regime in 1989, we entered a very quick and radical energy transformation process and at the beginning of that process we relied solely on coal but throughout the years, we have been doing our best to change that and to move to more modern energy technologies and sources. We are looking at nuclear, we already have a strong mix of renewables, mostly wind and solar, and we are obviously looking at natural gas. We use a lot of gas and this is a source of energy that we consider more important in Poland as well.

CGA: How has natural gas contributed to the Polish energy mix?

Ambassador: Poland is using more and more natural gas every year because of the level of development in our country. The assessments are that Poland uses about 18 billion cubic meters of natural gas, annually. A third of that is produced in Poland, a third of that is brought in through our LNG terminal, and a third of that used to come from Russia. The Polish government doesn’t purchase gas from Russia anymore and we were prepared for that decision. Poland has been preparing itself for years. We are in the process of building and opening the Baltic pipe, which will pump gas from Norway through Denmark to Poland, and this will sort of complete the gas energy picture in Poland, hopefully towards the end of this year.

Gas is important for the Polish industry, for investors that invest in the Polish industry, from outside of Poland, and it is essential for people and households in terms of keeping warm during winter.

CGA: What are Poland’s energy and environment policy goals and how does natural gas fit into them?

Ambassador: Natural gas in the climate context is very important and is absolutely essential for Poland and the region. The Polish government is devoted to move away from coal, which for several reasons is necessary. In order to transition from coal-based energy, we need gas and it is essential today. Poland uses about 18 billion cubic meters of gas annually but it tends to grow each year – for the households, but also for industry.

Environment policy goals and gas is a topic which is absolutely essential for Poland today. Poland is transitioning from our coal-powered plants to new technologies. There is a huge need in Poland and in the region to extend the levels of us purchasing gas and for Canada, this could be a very interesting topic.

CGA: You mentioned one-third of the portion of natural gas used in Poland used to come from Russia, which has been cut off and there are talks of energy security. Has your government engaged Canada’s government on that issue because of the events that have unfolded in Europe?

Ambassador: Poland is working closely with Canada. Both governments are having conversations on the topics related not only to the war and the horrid Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also related to energy which is important for our region. It is essential to do all we can to stop the revenue that Russia generates from selling energy. A lot of work in that area has happened. The European Union has introduced several sanctions which relate to energy. Canada has done quite a lot with decisions to stop purchasing oil from Russia and to start providing services in the areas of gas and oil. These are the decisions which were appreciated in Poland. So, there are many conversations between Poland and Canada, and energy is an area which is further developing. This is a priority for me and my colleagues at the Embassy. We are having conversations for nuclear cooperation, we’re having a conversation on renewables, and on the topic of gas, we are very happy to see an internal debate in Canada. We hope that Canada, being a superpower in the area of resources, will be able to send gas to Poland, and to the region, in order to support the diversification of energy sources. This is very important from our perspective and we are ready and will be happy to support Canada in that regard.

“We hope that Canada, being a superpower in the area of resources, will be able to send gas to Poland, and to the region, in order to support the diversification of energy sources.”

CGA: What would be your top message to Canadian decision makers as it looks at ways to support European and more specifically Poland’s energy security?

Ambassador: My hope for the Canadian government and all the Canadian partners, including businesses, would be to continue doing what you’re doing and do more. The war in Ukraine is far from finished. Ukrainians need international support, countries of the region, including Poland, need international support, including Canadian support in the context of energy. We need to do as much as possible to diversify the energy mix and to cut off Russians from revenues in the area of energy sales. So, my request and hope for the Canadian government is to consider and open as many avenues as possible for energy cooperation. Gas is a very important source of energy for our region and much more could still be done. We need to see the Canadian gas flowing in European pipelines and this is the area that I hope the conversation in Canada will further develop.

This interview has been transcribed and edited for length and clarity.

Tim: I am Timothy Egan, the Canadian Gas Association’s President and CEO. We really appreciate this chance to chat.

MP Steve Baker: I am absolutely delighted to meet you.

Tim: First question is about local politics for you: you talk a lot about concerns in your constituency around hunger and poverty. There’s been a fair bit of talk about energy poverty in several places in Europe and now a little bit in North America as well. Do you think the hunger and poverty challenges in your constituency are related to energy issues or what is the cause? What do you think is going on?

MP: I wouldn’t have said it was the preeminent reason, but I would see it as a contributor. So, if I just were to step back — the previous chairman, who has just rotated out of the food bank, is a friend of mine at church. I’m well connected to the food bank and other people who run the food bank were at my church as well. So, I’ve understood there’s been a growing and serious problem of food insecurity in Wycombe [Buckinghamshire, UK] and partly because of the pandemic there was a big surge. Most of those people have moments of crisis, it is therefore a matter of really serious concern to me in the 21st century. We should better feed people. Sheffield Hallam University found Wycombe to be the most food insecure place in the UK and rather than argue about the method, I’ve accepted and leaned into that and said we need to do more. But what are the factors? I think because we’re so close to London, there’s a problem of very high living costs, but people in Wickham are not so well paid, plus high housing costs and energy costs will of course feed into it. If you’re a person on 20 something thousand pounds in the UK, then you’re going to struggle to make ends meet in Wickham. You’re just bound to. It’s an expensive place to live so anything on energy bills will concern me. I understand that we’re putting about 11 billion into renewables through energy bills right now in the UK with some of the biggest wind farms getting up to half a billion. I am very conscious in Wickham that people are not so well off…so we’ve got a bit of a problem now. The Prime Minister claims that the cost of renewables has been falling — he said that in an answer… in the House of Commons — but when [we] did the research — once you factor in the scale of the subsidy I don’t think you can sustain the argument that the price of wind has been falling — so we’re going to have to have a really serious conversation about energy poverty and what it means for people in constituencies like mine. But, knowing politicians, they’ll try to have it both ways… they’ll want action on food and fuel poverty but then they’ll also want net zero harder and faster and I’m afraid I think sometimes you have to accept you can’t have everything.

Tim: Recently, John Constable spoke before the House of Lords at some length about the cost of energy and the renewable subsidy and how much of the electricity cost in the UK it represented. We have a similar situation in Canada and one of the challenges is how do you tease this out to explain it to people and then to try to address it. What can you do for those who are suffering the most because the response of ‘provide assistance to them’ is often an easy response.

MP: If I may, pick up two threads there, the first thing I would like to see…is when bills go out, I would like to see a clear indication of what is tax, what is subsidy and what is actually the cost of the energy. That could be done with a pie chart or a stack bar chart or something that gives people a clear understanding…I would like to see that communicated with the public [so they know] what the cost of these things is. I think [that] would be a very good idea because we do need public consent and the second point about assistance — I mean, I’ve been making this point on the record when the UK looks at our future trajectory of debt, our budget watchdog — the Office for Budget Responsibility — does it every other year — they look at the long-term debt trajectory and they keep finding the public finances are unsustainable because of age-related spending and the coronavirus crisis has basically catapulted us forward about 20 years on that debt trajectory and that’s going to crystallize hard choices sooner. That’s why today we’ve got this vote going on with the national insurance bill because Boris [Johnson, Prime Minister of the UK] is facing waiting lists in the national health service of 10 million. [He] has reached for higher taxes but the point I’m making is all of these pressures on ordinary people can’t go on we can’t keep raising taxes we can’t keep imposing the cost of net zero and expect people to just wear it all. So, to your point about assistance, I mean the reality that politicians have got to face up to is that we are running out of other people’s money. That is the problem — tax is approximately in its historic limits in the UK and the debt trajectory is terrible…we’ve got to start asking serious questions about what it means to live within what we can afford.

Tim: The questions you raise are questions that are certainly occurring, I think, across the anglosphere, if I can put it that way, in Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and the UK — very similar questions — and in all those countries, net zero was offered as this sort of necessary pursuit. As you noted it’s kept separate from the question of costs. What do you do to bring the two together? What do you do to help people understand the implications of net zero because on first blush it’s very appealing to a lot of people?

MP: Well, the idea, even if one were to set aside climate change — which we can’t — of basing the lives of billions of people on burning a finite resource would obviously be, in the long run, madness. On top of that, [it] has to be said, climate change is real, carbon dioxide is a contributor, human-emitted carbon dioxide is a contributor, [and] we should take action. I’m not challenging the science, so what I think we have to say to people is this is a conversation now about how we decarbonize. Now, there are people who do want to talk about the science. I find it very interesting — I do think sometimes the science is very badly misrepresented — I think that’s very clear. But… every time someone pivots from my questions about cost, back to why we need to do something, we should call that out. Talking about the science is about why and I’m not challenging why we need to do something, and actually I’m not challenging what we’re going to do, which is go to net zero. I’m not challenging those things…[but] let’s talk about how, because if there isn’t public consent for this enormous set of changes in our lives — the way we insulate and heat our homes, the cars we drive, the food we eat, the extent to which we can travel — it will affect our work as well — it’s so transformational in our lives. If there isn’t a serious public debate and public consent then I think we will have a terrible political rail. Right now in the UK and no doubt in Canada — you told me that there’s basically a political consensus that it should be done, the only question is how hard and fast — I think if you give no one a choice at the ballot box, you just store up trouble for later. That’s when you say ‘how are you going to do it?’ Well, I think we need to write the articles, we need to have the tv appearances, we’re going to need to have the debates in parliament, and just put before the public — this is what it’s really concretely going to mean in your life to do this — is this really what you want?

“[I]f there isn’t public consent for this enormous set of changes in our lives — the way we insulate and heat our homes, the cars we drive, the food we eat, the extent to which we can travel — it will affect our work as well — it’s so transformational in our lives.”

Tim: Well, we’re certainly in a very similar debate right now and in fact we’re in the midst of an election campaign¹ and the parties are all tripping over one another to say how committed they are to achieving net zero, but there is no conversation about how. In the UK, the Prime Minister seemed very much on track to phase out natural gas as part of his [plan]. You and others have spoken to the challenges that represents — we followed that very closely as you can imagine. I was intrigued by how you managed to push open the conversation and make people realize that this has enormous cost implications for homeowners. How did it come about that the PM was focused on gas and how did you manage to succeed in pushing back?

MP: I wrote an article first for The Critic magazine, which is a monthly news magazine, and then I wrote for the Sun, which is a wide circulation tabloid newspaper — a very good one — and just pointed out the facts. I pointed out that the government plans to ban your gas boiler by 2035, saying you’ll be spending 10,000 pounds to heat your house [and] you’ll also need to spend thousands of pounds more on insulating, putting in new, bigger radiators, bigger pipes, perhaps under-floor heating — it’s an enormous undertaking — and, by the way, you might not be able to do it because you’re in a flat — so it was putting the facts before the public and we found that it was an open door. Once a popular newspaper had written up just what it was going to cost real people and actually say ‘on a cold night when the wind isn’t blowing, when you haven’t got gas, you could well find yourself shivering in the dark under a duvet’ — that’s the sort of image — and it’s pretty unarguable that if we’ve got unreliable electricity and no gas heating and we force people to spend all this money…it’s very clearly a reduction in living standards. I think that’s why the door opened. Once we [said] it in the Sun, I think it’s fair to say that the Telegraph also very much picked up on the cost for everyday people. What I find is people are always very wary — they think I’m going to be a climate change denier — which, of course, is a smear that I’m occasionally labeled with. But, it’s not true — I’m saying yes, I accept climate change science and we should do something. Basically, [I’m where] Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Schellenberger are — I know both — so…we should act — but it’s setting before the public something that matters in their life, that’s what’s made the big difference and the newspapers have been willing to get alongside that. I think from there we’ll end up having a serious conversation about what is done.

Tim: Do you think if you hadn’t broken in with the piece in the Sun that this wouldn’t have happened?

MP: That does appear to be the case, yes. I’m always reluctant to do too much claiming of glory but it does appear that if we hadn’t written in the Critic and the Sun, we would have just bobbled forwards, banning gas boilers very quickly and all the rest of it with its complacency. This is the problem that happens in politics when all the front benches agree, and all the main parties agree, complacency sets in, then scrutiny quits and costs are being forced on the public. The new extension of high-speed rail in the UK is another classic — all the main political parties agreed on it. Some of us said ‘it’s not going to be worth the money and by the way the costs will escalate extremely quickly.’ It’s all come to pass — the costs are wildly running out of control but there’s not been real scrutiny because the parties are all in, complacent in approving it, so I fear a repetition of that. But, what I do say is the public are not false, the newspapers are not false, and if politicians are brave enough to ask the questions: How is this going to work and how are we going to deliver? This is what it’s going to cost people — where will the costs fall? Can those people afford it? I think then, that newspapers and the public sphere will awaken in Canada as it has in the UK.

Tim: Well, I’m a bit more pessimistic about the situation in Canada. You have a much more robust and diverse media than have we and it’s difficult to get a story. I think many of the media outlets in Canada would be more along the lines of the Guardian on this sort of thing, so less likely to pick some stuff up.

MP: Far be it for me to lecture your own politicians, only a few of whom I have met, and I thought I’ve liked them all but I’m afraid my own experience in politics which is very often uncomfortable is that sometimes somebody within the political sphere’s got to push up against, as it were, the inside of the balloon and make a fuss… Yeah the Guardian hates me but I can work with that — I can work with their condemnation and scrutiny and loathing to get my story out and I’m afraid it’s going to take a brave Canadian politician to be willing to step into the lion’s den and say ‘Actually, you guys say you care about war and energy poverty, let’s talk about what your net-zero policy is really going to mean.’

Tim: Have you triggered much support from other backbenchers in the in the government markets?

MP: I’ve organized two groups of backbenchers and I’ve said to my colleagues I didn’t want to organize the third because it’s an awful lot of work so that is with my colleague Craig McKinley… I don’t know how many people are on it… but I have to say it’s not going to be a majority in parliament…Nobody should be under any illusions we are not going to be winning any votes in parliament over this. With the main political parties aligned it’s going to be much more like the experience with coronavirus, that we’re going to be a small band of outliers asking really quite tricky questions but reasonably and that I think will open up a public debate but we’re not likely to overturn an 80-seat majority in our parliament.

Tim: Back to the specifics around energy, hydrogen is another big part of the conversation in the UK on the emission reduction agenda. Canada also has a hydrogen strategy and industry is trying to work with government on it. What are your thoughts about the hydrogen opportunity in the UK? Do you have any advice for other countries that are exploring it, because I argue the UK’s in many respects, well advanced on that conversation.

MP: I’m actually enthusiastic about hydrogen. I’m an aerospace engineer and I can see the potential for hydrogen in aircraft and of course in cars. The speed of refuelling and the range — all that — I could be really enthusiastic for hydrogen. The problem is, of course, where’s it going to come from because anyone following this conversation will know that hydrogen’s not available free in abundance. I’m very concerned that if we go for hydrogen from natural gas that’ll be not at all carbon neutral, if we go for hydrogen from green hydrogen from the electrolysis of water that’s just so expensive. Using wind to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and all the losses that are inherent along that process of going from wind to fuel cells — it’s just so fantastically expensive so occasionally someone will flirt with nuclear fusion but it does seem to me that until we’ve got the kind of abundance which new fusion seems to offer it does feel to me like I I’m just not sure where the hydrogen is coming from. My advice is to be realistic. I mean, yes, hydrogen but where’s it coming from? …An energy company came to see me and suggested that the government should enable a five per cent hydrogen blend in our gas system in order to create enough demand for hydrogen, to incentivize the big petrochemical companies to look how they could more efficiently produce it. That is an attractive suggestion but I still am pretty pessimistic that hydrogen can be produced cost effectively.

Tim: One of the cheapest ways to produce hydrogen now is directly from natural gas. The UK has always been a significant natural gas producer, you have enormous natural gas resources available, [but] fracking is incredibly controversial in the UK. Do you see an opportunity to develop those domestic resources?

MP: Do I see an opportunity? Yes, I absolutely do see an opportunity. One of my exquisite frustrations is that a constituent of mine, an engineer, claims that he’s got a drilling bit which can deliver shale gas without fracking. He, I think if I’ve understood correctly, argues that when you put the drill bit through, if it’s lubricated then the lubricant closes up the fissures in the shale so he’s got a drill bit that doesn’t require that kind of lubricant. As a result, when it goes through the shale, the gas immediately just starts flowing without any need for the frack job that’s controversial — you just drill the hole, out comes the gas. I’ve tried to present this to ministers because he’s of course got a regulatory impediment. No one’s going to invest in the final development of that drilling head … until they know that they can use it. So, he’s stuck in a catch-22. I’ve tried to get in to see ministers to present the possibility and ask for the regulatory change but they’re really not interested. That tells me that whatever the opportunity for secure, plentiful inexpensive gas supplies in the UK, ministers don’t want that gas. They want to leave it in the ground and I do personally find that very alarming. If we’re going to do hydrogen we need gas — we need our own gas for short-run energy security needs. There are all sorts of opportunities to use that gas and use it well and to improve the well-being and security of the British people. I’m alarmed actually that ministers don’t even want to take the meeting to hear about how it could be done without fracking and if they don’t want to do it without fracking then I don’t see them embracing the controversy of the frack even though it’s a very a very small seismic impact. I once interrupted a briefing in parliament here — a seismologist was explaining that a typical frack job is like dropping a carton of orange juice from waist height — and I stopped her to say ‘sorry did I really hear that correctly, a carton of orange juice from waist height?’ So, it does seem to me if that’s broadly true, then we’ve just got to make sure that fracking is done safely in relation to whatever geological features underground make it more difficult and we’ve got to be getting on with it. But, of course, everything’s propagandized — you see the taps with gas leaking out and all the rest of it, but we should have political courage to get through the propaganda and secure the energy supplies for the prosperity of the people that we set here to serve.

“There are all sorts of opportunities to use that gas and use it well and to improve the well-being and security of the British people.”

Tim: Yeah, it’s been fascinating here. We have extraordinary gas reserves in many places across the country and in places where conventional resources have been developed. And to the benefit of local communities, there’s much more openness to fracking because they understand the value proposition of developing the resource, whereas in those regions where there’s been no development of the resource the idea of fracking is just sort of anathema. So, I sense the UK is more like those latter situations in Canada.

MP: I have seen thoughtful Members of Parliament who I respect, be very fervently against fracking because that’s the democratic pressure that they are under and it feels a bit like this ship has sailed and that seems a pity. But, that’s why I’m quite enthusiastic about my constituent’s proposition for a drilling equipment that doesn’t need a frack because we’ve all got to accept that holes need to be drilled in the ground and if it can be done without fracking through the shell, then that seems to be quite exciting.

Tim: We’ve taken a lot of your time, is there anything else you’d like to comment on for our readers or for this piece?

MP: What I would say to readers is that the conversation that you have now is absolutely existential to our prosperity. Even though there are people enthusiastic to have detailed conversations about the science and…the tuning of climate models and how that makes a difference to even the sign of feedback mechanisms, but there’s no point having that conversation because it doesn’t capture the public imagination. So, I would say to people who want to have any kind of success in this conversation, to just let that go. They need to have the conversation about how it’s delivered because actually I dare say that politicians in Canada are not much better than politicians on the whole in the UK. They don’t tend to think through the detail of how something’s going to be delivered whether it’s the benefit system or healthcare reform or whatever. We tend to say what we want and why we want it and we might complain about what if we don’t get it, but as an engineer…I really care about how things are done. So, my advice would be to anyone who cares about prosperity and energy to have the conversation about how, and to be ruthless in refocusing the conversation on how, because that will expose the wishful thinking of people who have not considered the incompatible policy goals they have, dealing with energy poverty plus net zero, for example. That would be my main thing. It might be that it’s elected people who’ve got to be brave and have the conversation and my advice to them would be you can be brave as soon as you’re reasonable. The vast majority of electors will want their elected representatives to stand up for their prosperity so you can safely do that. …In politics you have to accept you’re not going to be able to satisfy everyone.

“[M]y advice would be to anyone who cares about prosperity and energy to have the conversation about how, and to be ruthless in refocusing the conversation on how, because that will expose the wishful thinking of people who have not considered the incompatible policy goals they have, dealing with energy poverty plus net zero, for example.”

Tim: I really appreciate your having taken the time, and hope we have another occasion to speak. Thank you.