An interesting post at the Oil Drum by Jerome Guillet, writing as Jerome a Paris, on Russia and European energy security, describing the argument that energy liberalisation is an answer to the EU’s dependence on Russian gas as "the usual insane crap." He also had a piece in the FT in February, making the same point in rather more diplomatic language. (FT pieces may require subscription)

As far as I can see, however, he fails to demonstrate his point. How national champions such as GDF and Eni signing long-term supply deals with Gazprom helps ease Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, I really don’t know. On the contrary, it is the UK market, the most liberalised in Europe, that is opening the fastest to new sources of gas from sources including Norway and Qatar. The bottom line, surely, is that history, geography and geology mean that Europe is and will continue to be heavily dependent on Russian gas for the forseeable future. The best it can do is try to give itself as many credible alternatives as possible.

He argues for greater energy efficiency and diversity of supply away from gas and coal, presumably to nuclear and renewables. Those are all excellent ideas. But they can be delivered in a liberalised market. The obstacles to new nuclear build in countries that will really need it, including Germany, Italy, and Spain, are nothing to do with the financing problems created by more liberalised energy markets, and all about politics, as this post on the Nuclear Eenergy Institute blog suggests.

The British papers this morning are full of stories about Lord Browne’s downfall. The Daily Mail, sister paper of the Mail on Sunday, which first wanted to publish the story about Lord Browne’s former partner, has some of the fiercest coverage. My colleague Chris Hughes has been looking at what the future holds for Lord Browne, and points out that the damage done to his credibility by his lie to a court, however apparently insignificant and short-lived, will be hard to recover from.

Private equity, which thrives away from the limelight, is one likely option. He already has a role at Apax Partners, the buy-out firm, and his great success at BP was his deal-making. But his public face, if he has one, is most likely to be in some sort of charitable or campaigning work. As I pointed out here last week, Lord Browne has thought a lot about climate change, and wants to remain involved in the fight to avert the threat of global warming. It would be a shame if the scandal that brought him down also prevents him playing a role in that effort.

Where the oil and gas industry ventures, controversy follows. The Helena (Montana) Independent Record reports from Billings that the rush to drill in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Montana is pushing hunters and their game off federal land. The Environmental Working Group and the National Wildlife Federation found that drilling has doubled in the past decade and is destroying crucial habitat for species including pronghorn antelope, mule deer, elk and sage grouse. The fact that hunter and game appear to be ganging up on drillers may seem ironic, but it is also an example of one of the biggest hurdles to US energy policy: Nimby - Not in My Back Yard. Whether it is a famous liberal Senator blocking windmills off Cape Cod or Malibu celebrities grumbling about a new Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving terminal potentially spoiling their surfing, Nimby is everywhere. Why else was ethanol the cornerstone of George W. Bush’s most recent State of the Union address? It’s not much more environmentally friendly than petrol, it’s hardly cost effective and in terms of sheer scale, close to unachievable. But it does come with one crucial element - farm belt votes.

Peter Sutherland, BP’s feisty chairman, has had a strained relationship with John Browne, the company’s chief executive who quit yesterday. Yet he called Lord Browne’s hasty departure - caused by the fact that Lord Browne lied to a judge - a "tragedy" and said his immediate resignation was prompted by the chief executive’s "sense of honour." Though, certainly a "shabby end to a brilliant career," as my colleague Ed Crooks writes, "tragedy" was perhaps an unfortunate word for Mr Sutherland to use. Just weeks ago, at BP’s AGM, one shareholder stood to chastise Mr Sutherland and BP for often calling the company’s Texas City refinery explosion, in which 15 people died, an incident instead of a tragedy. Loren Steffy, of the Houston Chronicle, picked up on the theme, writing in his blog: "A tragedy? No, that would have been more than two years ago in Texas City. Where was Browne’s sense of honour then?"