A government energy minister has declined to give details of the acceptable level of fugitive emissions from fracking wells in the UK.
Speaking this afternoon in the House of Lords, Baroness Neville-Rolfe (pictured left) avoided giving direct answers to three different peers. She said it was a matter for experts and it would be decided on a site-by-site basis. Finally, she agreed to write to the House on what advice the government had received.
The issue of fugitive methane emissions from shale gas wells was a key concern of the government’s adviser, the Committee on Climate Change.
It said in a report delivered in March that shale gas development was inconsistent with UK carbon budgets unless three tests were met. The tests included strict limits on leaks during well development, production and decommissioning.
This afternoon, Baroness Royall (Labour), asked the minister:
“Given that methane is 80 times more significant as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide what level of fugitive emission, that is to say leakage, would the government define as an acceptable level?”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe replied:
“The noble lady is right to draw attention to methane and that is of course one of the key focuses of the Environment Agency who have control over the permitting process and environmental emissions.”
Lord Foulkes (Labour) asked the question again:
“Try again and answer the question asked by my noble friend Baroness Royall what amount of leakage is acceptable?”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe replied:
“I think this is a matter for the experts concerned in the particular circumstances. Our regulatory system is site-specific. You go to the particular site and you work out clearly you want to minimise the emissions of all six of the Kyoto basket of gases and I would think that would be an agreed objective.”
Lord Harris of Harringey (Labour) asked:
“Does that imply that the government doesn’t have a view of this matter as to what is an acceptable degree of leakage? Or is it perhaps consulting those experts and, if so, will the noble lady the minister share with us what advice has been received on what would be an acceptable level of leakage.”
The minister replied:
“I can certainly write to the noble lords about what advice we have received if that would be helpful and I return to my point that we have a strong regulatory system right across the board in this area and we should look to this as an opportunity.”
Earlier, in an answer to Baroness McIntosh (left), the minister said the government believed the UK’s regulatory system would meet the CCC’s test on fugitive emissions.
The minister said she had “been struck by the variety of independent agencies” involved in decisions about shale gas. This has been a criticism made by some opponents of fracking.
She also said decisions about fracking should be “taken by the relevant local planning authority”. The Communities and Local Government Secretary is expected to announce his decision next month on whether Cuadrilla should be allowed to frack at two sites in Lancashire, after its applications were refused by Lancashire County Council.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe said: “I believe that shale has the potential to make a strong contribution to the transition from a heavily coal-fired carbon-inducing energy mix to a transition that I think we all share in 2050.”
Who sets the acceptable level?
DrillorDrop asked the Environment Agency whether it set acceptable levels of methane emissions for each site, as suggested by the minister, and nationally. We also asked if the EA did not set acceptable emissions levels, who did?
A spokesperson for the EA replied:
“The operator will need to describe how they will manage fugitive emissions in an emissions management plan and that requires approval by the Environment Agency, it is required by the environmental permit. Permits are obviously on a site by site basis.”
The spokesperson added that the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has taken over from the Department of Energy and Climate Change responsibility “for the national picture”.
.
Categories: Politics
DRILL OR DROP? 
Surely it is not site by site but the cumulative impacts of many sites and supporting infrastructure (compressor stations and pipelines which all leak emissions) they should be considering?
Hi Barbara, long-time, no see – we were having a laugh and a joke with poor Steve Becker last time we met outside County Hall last summer 😦
I think the compressor stations thing is a misnomer in the UK because of our existing gas distribution systems and size of the UK compared with the US where I understand many shale states didn’t previously have a gas distribution infrastructure and it’s also a lot bigger – meaning compressor stations are needed in order to provide extra ‘oomph’ in piping gas across bigger distances. Pipeline losses from the low pressure gas grid in the UK apparently run at below 0.5% and are getting lower all the time.
System losses look likely to be negligible to me overall as a result.
A lot of the fugitive emissions in the US are from those ridiculous open wastewater storage ponds that allow dissolved methane to escape to atmosphere, and cold venting of unwanted gas in the shale oil fields like the Bakken in North Dakota – neither of which will be routinely permitted here (the exception being venting may be allowed in a limited range of emergency circumstances).
Fortunately, the H1 risk assessment that is part of the environmental permitting process, along with EIA, will mean the EA and Minerals Planning Authorities will be able to take cumulative impacts into account of the industry grows.
Lee – I note that Carbon Brief suggest that “Some methane, however, escapes into the atmosphere during well completion. This makes up the majority of so-called fugitive emissions, even taking into account leakage that occurs when the gas is being transported.” And yet you fail to mention that whilst dismissing some of the other pathways – can you clarify that for us.
Are Carbon Brief wrong there?
At West Newton A Rathlin cold vented the gas, not because of an emergency situation but because there was not enough pressure to ignite the flame. No on took samples of the emissions and Rathlin did not implement the OMP as instructed by the EA.
Ruth, your article confused me on a number of counts. First of all your title implied that the Minister avoided questions about “fracking emissions” but in the first paragraph of your article you say, “She said it was a matter for experts and it would be decided on a site-by-site basis. Finally, she agreed to write to the House on what advice the government had received.”
So, did she avoid the questions, or did she say that it was a matter for experts? Why would you consider that answer as “avoiding the question?” Would you rather that she give an answer that was not based on knowledge? This seems to be the preferred methodology for the anti-frack, anti-fact crowd, so I can understand your bias in this direction.
Another point that has confused me is the association of methane emissions with fracking technology. Fracking doesn’t cause methane emissions, Ruth. Natural gas extraction will result in some fugitive methane emissions. These are two separate matters. Do you understand the distinction?
Other than that, this is a typical anti-frack article. You start off with a statement from the government and proceed to parade a group of radical extremist quotes by the reader. These extremists make the typical ill-founded arguments, such as the fact that methane is 80x more dangerous than co2 as a GHG. What trash, Ruth. What trash.
Peeny – if you find Ruth’s journalism so irksome what are you doing here.
Believe me we find her analysis much more cogent than yours.
I come here to harangue, harass, and expose you for your untruths, John. That’s all! ;o)
Well you are not doing a very good job – I hope nobody is paying you for it 😉
Welcome to the sunshine, which of the pro fracking hippie commune are you today? The literate one i see, good. There is no difference between the fracking process and the gas extraction, since one would not occur unless it was to produce the other,no-one fracks a well and then goes away, therefore they are one and same.
Yes she avoided the question, she prevaricated with a generality and would not provide an answer to a direct question, that is called avoiding the question.
Methane has a varying effect on climate change, depending upon how long it remains in the atmosphere, the lowest estimate is 20 times the greenhouse effect of co2, that is after two years in the atmosphere, the highest estimation is 80 times the greenhouse effect if the methane is in the atmosphere for 20 years or more, no top limit has been measured yet as we are still in the process of measuring it. there is no information on how long methane remains in the atmosphere and how it reacts over a long timescale. However records of the Great Permian Extinction Event indicated that methane was the gas most present in the atmosphere that caused the last remaining life forms to die out due to overheating the atmosphere. Animal and plant life cant tolerate high levels of methane and gradual die off occurs. Look at the trees around your home are they turning brown long before the end of summer? And remember how many insects there used to be? just driving down the road in the spring and summer, my car used to covered in insect remains, now there is hardly any. Remember the bird song in the morning? It used to be almost deafening when the sun rose, walk in the forests and birds were singing everywhere bees and insects flying all around you. Today you hardly hear a bird singing and the morning chorus is just a few local birds, it is almost silent, i hardly see bees or even wasps these days. Turn on a light at night and you used to be surrounded by moths, no more just a few.
Wake up and look around you, or are you too busy talking trash?
Nope, PhiC. Your figures are all wrong and you are making some other false assumptions.
You are citing this old wives tale that methane is 86x more powerful than co2 in terms of global warming potential. This just isn’t the case, because half of methane is gone after just eight years, and almost all of it is gone by 24 years. CO2, by contrast, can hang around for over 1,000 years. So, making a comparison based on pulse impact (the 80x figure) is just phony science, and has been discredited widely by the scientific community.
““People are placing too much emphasis on methane,” says Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors. “And really, people should prove that we can actually get the CO2 emissions down first, before worrying about whether we are doing enough to get methane emissions down.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/?utm_term=.cdcb44f0d594
Another mistake you make is assuming that fracking causes any methane emission. Fracking is the act of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock (usually shale) far beneath the surface of the earth. Cracking that rock doesn’t release any fugitive emissions. Some fugitive emissions are released during the process of extraction (and elsewhere in the value chain) but that is true regardless of whether the well is conventional or unconventional – fracked or not fracked. So, to be clear, fracking in and of itself does not create fugitive emissions.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that fugitive methane emissions stand at between 1-3% of production. Many of your anti-fracking buddies have asserted a number that is around 10%. The IPCC numbers are backed by studies from MIT, the University of Maryland, US Dept of Energy, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell to name a few. The major sources of methane are related to wetlands and agriculture.
Last, the Minister gave an honest response to the question asked when she said that she would leave it to experts. I understand that you find it more convenient just to spew numbers as if you are an expert when asked a question to which you do not know the answer, but the Minister obviously felt that doing so would not be honest, nor would it be in the best interest of the public. She and you differ on this point.
You’re a desperate man – deriding the contributions of others but expecting us to believe the blatent spin and bull from yourself.
No peeny, your figures are wrong. Tell it to the fossils, the living ain’t listening.
Phil C and Mike Hamblett, can you give us your credentials? I’d like to compare them with those of Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist and physicist at the University of Oxford who has published the study that compared global warming potentials of cumulative and short term pollutants. What do you think that professor Pierrehumbert missed in his analysis that you were able to detect? Thanks!
Ahhh peeny old thing old hippie pro fracking troll hippie collective, which are you today then? I see its the cajoling one.
What do i see? The truth old thing, the truth. Look around you peeny, if you cant see the effects of pollution and climate change, then i feel sorry for you, you are obviously too far gone down that denial black hole, only a miracle or a massive disaster will bring you back to life..
Peeny if you were not so sad you would be funny, you and the others in your pro fracking anonymous troll collective are desperate to squash this issue arent you? Well despair on, it wont go away.
Ha, peeny mr anonymous hippie pro fracking troll collective, you demand my credentials, well what are yours, who are you? what interest do you have in berating any opposition to fracking?
No? i thought not. But of course none of that is the least bit relevant is it? Just another side step from the inconvenient truth to cloud the issue.
Look at the fossils, you rely upon them for your gas, maybe they have a story for you, they are more than just fuels, there is a reason they are there in that form.
Shhhh…listen, you can hear them now….’dont do it peeny, dont do it peeny, if you carry on you will join us down here.’
Here are the figures for lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Greenhouse GasLifetime (Years)100-Year GWP (Global Warming Potential)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) hundreds1
Methane (CH4) 1225
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) 26414,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) 3,20022,800
PFC-14 (CF4) 50,0007,390
Source: Table 2.14 in the IPCC AR4 WG-I Report. Original table lists many more gases.
Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is “hundreds of years”, rather than a specific number.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines a gas’s lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process.
Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades. The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.
8 years for methane to degrade? the figure is 1225 years, and as you say, Co2 can stay for thousands of years too.
It puts it a bit more in perspective doesnt it?
Methane in the atmosphere after an initial plateau has been increasing steadily since 2007 and is now about 150 times background level. The reasons for this are not yet certain, but it is interesting to see that high pressure fracking started around that date. Methane breaks down into Co2 when burned which increases levels in the atmosphere. Also the gradual global warming has now accelerated and methane is being released from under permafrost and frozen lakes, frozen methane hydrates from beneath the oceans (just as the Permian event) and of course industrial processes such as fracking and other gas extraction methods. you say that if that were so, then a lightning strike would set the world on fire? I think you said explode but i will put that down to where it came from. Well the recent massive fires in northern USA and Canada, are right next to fracking and gas extraction wells and some of these suffered earthquakes, no doubt emitting methane into the air, California too. the fire fighter said that they had never experienced such heat from forest fires before, it was as if the air was on fire. Some of these have been attributed to lightning strikes.
Had enough yet?
“But all of these gases are different — after a pulse of methane is emitted into the atmosphere, half of it is no longer there after 8.3 years, and then only a quarter is left after another 8.3 years, and so on. That’s very different from the behavior of a pulse emission of carbon dioxide, some of which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years.”
Thank you!
No longer there peeny? Then pray where does it go? Old/new in/out shake it all about. Peeny give us break, no one believes this hot cold nasty nice, literate illiterate facade. You only answer one aspect of any mail, and go on and on and on as if its the only point, you ignore anything that you cant answer and crow and crow and crow about little things. My dog has gone to sleep on my lap, I’ll talk to her, she is much wiser than either of us.
Hi Phil, do you know better than Dr. Pierrehumbert, atmospheric physicist at University of Oxford? Does your dog? Sorry, but I’m going to trust his analysis over yours! Best of luck!
Phil – Dr P is Peeny’s new secret weapon – didn’t you know?
Shhhh peeny pro fracking agent hippie commune troll, listen, you can hear those fossils if you listen very carefully.’…..peeny….dont do it, dont do it….. its later than you think, come down here and we will show you what fracking really means….’
oh, sorry you dont listen do you? you just go on and on and on and on, ad finitum on little things as if that is all it is. i cant waste any more time on you.
Oh, my dog wants a walk, she is a wise girl, she would never pollute the forests and the land and skies as you would, she loves them too much, as do i. Yes Peeny, she knows better than you, better than me and better than any human dodgy funded scientist and ecocidal terrorist.
Dont you consider the future? ever? no of course you dont, Wake up peeny, while you still can.I want my children and grand children and so on to be able to live on this beautiful planet, being able to drink unpolluted water, eat unpolluted food, grow food on unpolluted land and breath unpolluted air,
You and your industry threaten that, no amount of spurious statistics will let you get away with it. you are opposed, you are opposed now and you always will be opposed. Go figure.
Get down off that high and mighty horse, Phil. I care every bit as much as you do for the planet and the future, I just choose a realistic path to solving our problems, one that won’t destroy large portions of the population.
I think Peeny’s horse is even higher (if a bit less mighty) than yours Phil – he thinks he’s going to save the world with fracking whilst you feed grannies into windmills LOL
Yes, I thought that was funny, talk about the pot calling the kettle black? Tough old birds those grannies, they are more likely to feed me to the windmills!
i will if you will. Look peeny old thing, i was seriously beginning to think you were no more than a badly programmed AI with human interface emulation, i am still not totally sure you are not, there is no humanity in your google page, no identity, no likes or dislikes, nothing, you are empty, nothing there.
But just for a brief second you show a spark of humanity there, or maybe you have just been upgraded, either way,
listen very carefully peeny, i vill zay zis only once….its not about figures or statistics, its not about being right or wrong, i would far rather be happy and healthy than right any day. I dont want to argue with you, but you leave me no choice, you threaten all that i love, and i will not have that. Whatever or who ever you are peeny look around at what a mess we are making of this planet by our petty divisions, eternal wars economic conquests and artificial manufactured chaos. You know the reasons for that and so do i.
You task me peeny, you task me, your industry intends to invade the very heartland of our country, you intend to despoil and pollute, to bury our villages and countryside in roaring stinking traffic, you invade the very earth and crack it open, seeking gas that has lain dormant for hundreds of millions of years. and where will you put all those millions of gallons of radio active polluted waste? you will not say, because you do not know.
And when people try to protest, to protect their houses an their lively hoods and their health, we tried to use the established avenues to demand explanation, protection and controls, what happens? they are over ruled by bureaurocratic insanity and ignored by council, the law, government and private companies. And when they do get so pissed off at this undemocratic disgusting treatment what happens? You scream insults at their attempts to bring these things to our notice.And what do our wonderful police d? they dont protect the people they are paid to protect, they protect private companies and treat the people as if they are criminals! And the private companies dont even pay for that, we do!
You are threatening the people who you frack to within an inch of their lives, you endanger their children and animals, my children and yours if you have any? Across the world people have been getting sick, yes because of fracking, we are not stupid, and you hide behind that ‘prove it was us’ guff and any possible healthy future we and they might have expected in what remains of our green and pleasant land is threatened.
And you say to me get off your high and mighty horse???!!!!… what a sick joke! if you care so much, then show it! Get out of that rat trap, there are millions of people that need our help, be one of the people that helps, be someone who makes a difference. dont crow to me, Get off your own horse before it falls down and drink your milk!
Those figures are old, Phil. See here: “The usual way to convert emissions of methane, black carbon, and other so-called short lived climate pollutants into carbon dioxide equivalents involves calculating their “global warming potential” over 100 years — thus, according to EPA, methane has 28 to 36 times as much warming impact as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a century. But the new study in Nature Climate Change finds that because methane has a shorter atmospheric life than carbon dioxide, the truth is that this gas – along with black carbon and various hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs — really has an impact over 20 to 40 years, rather than 100. (The calculation is actually for all uses of the global warming potential approach, not just for methane.)”
Whether CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 1,000 years is important but not as important as curtailing these non CO2 forcings right now. Those 20-40 years are going to be absolutely critical
So, my little Baltimore Blatherer, that is precisely why it is so important in the short term – we have to deal with these non CO2 climate forcings as a matter of urgency as they are one of the few short term levers we have.
Thank you so much for making the point for us.
John, That’s actually the opposite of what Dr. Pierrehumbert had to say on the subject. Is there something that you know that this atmospheric physicist has missed? Why is he so confused on the subject?
““People are placing too much emphasis on methane,” says Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors. “And really, people should prove that we can actually get the CO2 emissions down first, before worrying about whether we are doing enough to get methane emissions down.”
Well it seems he doesn’t have a monopoly on scientific opinion after all Dick
It was quite a bizarre statement from Pierrehumbert – we surely must do all we can to reduce both Co2 and methane concurrently.
Well, Peeny, I hope you realise that your post is extremely patronising, Peeny. When a question is asked of a Minister tasked with clairifying a situation, that is what a Minister should do, not hide behind the expert excuse. She has had plenty of time to understand what the experts are saying to her and bring it to the House in a form that can be understood by the members of the House of Lords. Maybe you don’t have that system where you come from, Peeny? I’m not sure the Peers see themselves as radical extremists, but I’m sure your rant will raise a wry smile or two. Do you understand the distinction, Peeny?
I’m afraid that I disagree, Tricia. Then again, I’m used to people speaking honestly and openly, and I value that kind of discourse. I don’t view the Minister’s answer as hiding behind anything. Rather, she wanted to make sure that the correct answer was given.
Now, I understand that the anti-frack crowd is used to making wildly exaggerated claims, and throwing around a lot of loose facts and figures (I have exposed enough of that on this website to publish a book!) but a Minister should be held to a higher standard. These divergent approaches probably explain why you and Ruth have a difficult time understanding the Minister’s answer, Tricia. Best of luck!
Hey – publish and be damned Peeny! Your book “Arguments I have won about fracking” will set records for the shortest book in the world. Best of luck!
I don’t know that they all leak, but if a leak does occur it is usually fixed pretty quickly because there is a risk of escaped gas catching fire. Of course you do know that Marsh gas aka Swamp Gas akd Will-o-the-wisp is methane, and it occurs all over the world and is probably by far the larger pollutent than every fraccing could be
Why on earth should ‘acceptable methane leakage rates’ be site specific? That just doesn’t make sense. From a climate point of view, it doesn’t matter which well the methane leaks from, and to say that we will accept a higher level of leakage from site A compared to site B completely misunderstands the issue. Pathetic response from the minister, who obviously knows nothing about the topic, and who just repeated the same old mantra of a ‘strong regulatory system’, even though it’s clear that this strong regulatory system has no idea how to deal with this problem.
Actually, Chris, the regulatory system we have in the UK for controlling emissions is quite satisfactory and much better than its equivalent in most parts of the US.
Operators of regulated facilities here are expected to avoid fugitive emissions altogether by design. Where there is a perceived risk of leaks, an emissions management plan is required in which an operator has to specify how it will control such emissions – this is reviewed by the regulator, and if it deems the plan unacceptable, it rejects if and the operator has to go back to the drawing board and specify tighter controls. This process is repeated until the regulator is satisfied.
The advantage of this approach is that, rather than impose artificial limits, operators must strive to achieve the lowest possible levels – which encourages continuous improvement. The problem with a fixed limit is that an operator might be able to achieve that easily, and could then choose to do so without striving to do better.
The same set of rules also apply to operators of anaerobic digestion plants that turn food and farm waste into ‘green’ and renewable biogas, and which are also susceptible to fugitive emissions.
There’s more here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/control-and-monitor-emissions-for-your-environmental-permit
And that’s without taking into account DSEAR and the very strict limitations those regulations impose on the grounds of worker and public safety.
Lee – you say “The advantage of this approach is that, rather than impose artificial limits, operators must strive to achieve the lowest possible levels – which encourages continuous improvement” yet surely the reality is that without any fixed goal posts the commercial imperative will be to do whatever is least expensive to pass whatever hurdle is set by the regulator for each site?
Yes, indeed, for millions of years swamps all over the world have been emitting Marsh gas into the atmosphere and by now it should have utterly replaced the normal air that we breath, thus nature has a way of dealing with, if not then the next bolt of lightening could blow up the entire planet. The most likely , or logical answer, seems to be that it is brought back to the ground by rain. or a chemical change is wrought in the upper atmosphere, probably by sun’s rays . What we do know is that it does not exist for ever in the atmosphere
Chris, thank you for the blinding glimpse of the obvious. “Pathetic response from the minister, who obviously knows nothing about the topic.” Yes, she didn’t know the answer. Guilty as charged.
You may find it pathetic when someone admits that they don’t have an answer and they make this admission in full view of the public, but I disagree. I call it honest, I call it brave, and I call it the right thing to do. On the other hand, lying to the public about studies from Johns Hopkins, and implying to readers that those studies imply a causal relationship between fracking and premature births, migraines, and sinus conditions is dishonest in the extreme. That kind of behavior is what gives anti-frackers such a bad name.
Perhaps you should take a lesson from Baroness Neville-Rolfe and stop yourself before you make statements in public about subjects which you clearly do not understand. It may save you some embarrassment in the future.
LOL Peeny – have to say I find your “it’s OK for politicians to be ignorant but still to make policy based on that ignorance” quite amusing 🙂
You are sounding more and more desperate – maybe its time to retire Peeny and start a new sock puppet account as poor old Peeny has no credibility left here at all now.
John, I realize that you inhabit a world filled with pixie dust policies, but do you honestly hold politicians on such a high pedestal? If so, it is worse than I thought! No, I don’t expect politicians to know everything about everything. In fact, I don’t even expect experts to know everything about everything. Furthermore, I prefer it when people admit that they don’t have an answer than when they pretend that they do (take special note there, Johnny boy). I don’t find any shame in relying on people who have specialized knowledge of a subject as long as they display a strong capacity for critical and objective thinking. I fear that I’ve lost you now, John. Oh well!
“as long as they display a strong capacity for critical and objective thinking” – well she hardly demonstrated that – it rather sounds as though she did a very good impression of a rabbit caught in the headlights to me.
Lost me Peeny? You never had me matey. 🙂
Oh well!
No, Hot Air, you didn’t follow closely. The experts should display these capacities. Keep up!
Are you sure you didn’t mean that comment for Mr Greely Jim, Brad, Bard Peeny or whoever you are being today?
As I said, she didn’t demonstrate that did she ? I don’t really care who YOU were talking about petal.
I don’t believe the Minister is a professed expert on natural gas emissions is she Hot Air? If not, then why would you expect her to know this answer?
Er – could it be because she is an Energy Minister and is paid to know the answer to obvious questions relating to her brief?
Er – you think it is realistic that an Energy Minister know every single detail about the energy industry? I disagree.
Just the big questions Peeny. Just the big ones 😉
Well that about sums it up, no restrictions or limits, each to be judged individually. So how do we pin emissions down? We cant because each will say “wasn’t us guv”. It seems the only way will be for the Environment Agency to have continuous 24hr presence to measure each and every site.
Is this the same EA who are just about to turn off pumping stations which will result in acres of flooded farmland, and are down to a skeleton staff because they have no money?
I thought the main point that was made by the CCC was that there was to be no increase in the total fugitive emissions of methane by the UK if shale gas is to be produced. Shale gas (or any other new hydrocarbon development) must displace existing gas, i.e. imports and / or declining North Sea production. The net balance must be zero or negative. All existing oil and gas production has these so called “fugitive emissions” but the anti brigade seem to want to imply that only shale gas comes with “fugitive emissions”. The only additional emissions from shale gas are from the flowback fluid post fracking, if green completions are used and the flow back is managed in accordance with permits there will be no additional fugitive emissions compared with conventional gas (see link 2 below). Locally produced shale gas will have lower emissions than imported LNG and gas imported from the Troll Field etc. in Norway or UK North Sea. Compression is already used extensively offshore and all over the UK by the National Grid. How many valves do you think are on an offshore gas plaform and transmission system? How much energy do you think it takes to liquify natural gas and then expand it at the delivery point? How much gas is lost in the process? Putting shale gas into the grid will make no difference, or even reduce emissions depending on what it displaces. But you all know this already don’t you? Fugitive emissions is a concept invented by FOE & Greenpeace to attack shale gas. I have no problem with attacking shale gas but please use logic and get the issues correct.
Every time you turn on your gas central heating or cooker or a cow farts you have “fugitive emissions”.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-revises-estimate-of-methane-leaks-from-us-fracking-fields/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/?utm_term=.3d3a53d3b1e5
The issue of fugitive emissions is a thorny one. With information & proof coming in from US & Australia that disturbed gas migrates away from the pipeline in unknowable quantities & travels via fissures & geological faults to the surface, contaminating aquifers & surface waterways, sometimes at considerable distance from the wellhead – I am inclined to question whether any member of either of the Houses of Parliament have fully considered the risks of fracking.
One other point that springs to mind is this:
Now that the government has redefined the term “fracking” we are being constantly assured that fracking is not being undertaken, we are placated with terms such as “well stimulation” & “mini frack” or quelled in our objections with assurances that the exploration planning permissions are for “conventional wells” at the initial assessment stages.
The public are being bribed & sweetened with offers of direct payments, should fracking occur in their locality but how would anyone know if a well has been fracked or not? Are we to rely on the honesty of the drilling companies or will there be stringent continuous monitoring by experts?
Fracking is the use of high pressure, high volume injection of water, chemicals & sand proppant as far as we understand. By the new definitions imposed by the government the previously fracked well in the Fylde was not fracked at all & yet due to well damage caused a noticeable earthquake & damage to nearby residences!
Can we trust our government to decide on the future of oil & gas exploration while they persist in changing definitions & revealing that they are ignorant of the risks?
Francis, sorry to go on about this but please explain what is different between a shale gas or “fracked gas” pipeline and a conventional gas pipeline? Answer – there is no difference. Same with the compression, the production facility, the valves etc. etc. The only new term that I have seen recently is HVHPwhich relates to volume more than anything else. The surface pressures are no different to conventional stimulation in sand proppant fracks or carbonate acid fracks. They are limited by equipment ratings.
If you mean that gas migrates to the surface in fracked shale gas wells via permeable faults existing or induced, this is rubbish, at least in the UK. If you mean that gas migrates to surface via poor casing and cementing practices through poorly or uncemented annuli then this is feasible in any conventional oil or gas or fracked shale oil or gas well. The methodology is the same. This is why in the UK all the casing strings will be cemented to surface.
Are you aware that the hydrocarbons that are produced by the oil and gas industry are the small amount remaining trapped in “reservoir” rocks with geological seals or in the case of shales, the source rocks? Most of the hydrocarbons produced by these source rocks come to surface over time and escape into the atmosphere / sea. This has been going on for millions of years, is going on right now, and will continue to do so as long as the source rocks are generating hydrocarbons.
The term “fracking” was latched onto by the anti shale brigade. The correct term is stimulation, mini-fracks are exactly what it says, small hydraulic fracture stimulations to test the rock properties and ability to inject fluids into the rock. No rocket science. In every well, conventional or otherwise, after drilling each hole section and cementing the casing, and after drilling out the shoe and 3m of new formation a leak off test or formation integrity test is undertaken to assess the strength of the cement and rock. This involves injecting a small volume of fluid into the rock, either to a pre-determined limit, or to exceed fracture. This provides valuable well control and integrity information for the next hole section.
Yes, a lot to take in. But this is why most of you have no real understanding of the processes taking place.
As to the Government, we elected them, we trust them with nuclear weapons, we trust them with our Armed Forces and pretty much everything else. Why can’t you trust them with our oil and gas industry? Everyone knows they are not experts in anything. Thats what the Civil Service is there for.
‘ What is different between a shale gas or “fracked gas” pipeline and a conventional gas pipeline?’
If you put a magnet on either it will attract as it is mild steel and will corrode equally as fast. In that respect they are the same.
The main issue being overlooked is how much steel, how many joints, how many valves, and how many weak points are there in relation to the amount of gas produced.
Conventional gas wells produce at a steady rate for years before declining in output. 1 well, one set of valves and 1 pipe. Lots and lots and lots of gas with only a few places for leakage.
.
Now shale. Initial well production decline of 75% after 1 year. Miles and miles (12,600 km over next few years according to EY) of pipe line, tens of thousands of valves, and tens of thousands of leak points for a fart full of gas. As that one pad dries up another site develops with miles and miles of pipe, another ten thousand valves and even more leak points as now everyone is rushing to get done because the investors have twigged the first one isn’t making any money. Let’s not forget all the propane injection sites because the calorific value is not compatible with our systems.
In the US when output is minimal some sites are sold to smaller companies who later on go bust leaving no one responsible for any leaks caused from long term corrosion.
Serious fugitive emissions would come directly from the size and nature of the industry with plenty of greed related leaks.
Perhaps one should add to your excellent article that 800,000 wells have been fracked in America and 2,000,000 world wide. No the Americans are not suffering from posioned water and no they have no more earth tremors than is normal ( in the UK we have about 300 tremors per year) Indeed, in the past 30 years, several wells have been fracked in the UK.
As you rightly say why should an MP be asked, or expected, to give an expert off the cuff answer on any, or every subject under the sun.. They are just people, same as we are !
Incidentally, before somebody points out the two tremors attributed by the mob rule anti fracking fraternity. Despite what the media say and Greenpeace and FoE. Caudrilla has never said that it caused two earth tremors. Their statement was that ‘They probably…….caused the two earth tremors’. Clever use of words by Caudrilla and they shut down acres of media claiming conspiracy theories, but if one examines what they said carefully ‘probably’ is not a fact and has no legal definitive as evidence of an event. For all we know they may have been two natural tremors and by all accounts they were very minor indeed
The hydraulic fracturing of Preese Hall 1 officially caused the earthquakes. There is no ‘probably’ unless you do not believe the wording of the British Geological Survey. In the review of the official report of events at P/H the summary states ‘We agree with the conclusion that the observed seismicity was induced by the hydraulic fracture treatments at Preese Hall’.
You may want to examine carefully the content of the report
Click to access 5055-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-recomm.pdf
After causing a 2.3M event it is very concerning that Cuadrilla suggest a 2.6M threshold for future events. One would assume that is the minimum magnitude required to release the gas.
I think you need to get your facts correct Victor and read the relevant reports if you want to be taken seriously.
There has only been 1 well into the shale layers that has been hydraulically fractured in the UK. Fracturing of other strata is not comparable with fracturing of shale so is irrelevant in this debate.
You may also take a look at recent seismic events in Oklahoma. They ‘probably’ were caused by the injection of waste water into geological formations.
Francis, I should have added that as far as I know there is a lot of CBM (Coal Bed Methane) and not very much shale gas in Australia. CBM is much shallower and may well have the problems you refer to at the start of your comment. There is very little overburden at the shallow depths and it would probably be fairly easy to fracture through to a shallow acquifer or even surface (although I have no experience in CBM). UK shale gas is much deeper and the Government has imposed a deep reservoir depth limit above which shale gas operations cannot take place.
As there has only been one fracked well in the UK which was spectacularly unsuccessful I find your assurances thin to fragile.
Of course I meant true fugitive gas. Our geology is fraught with fissures, faults, old mine shafts & quarries which date back to the stone age. Somewhat different from the US or Australia where faults are fewer & ancient mining activities virtually non existent.
I appreciate that you are speaking from a presumed superiority, your comment stinks of it, frankly. However, you will not be allaying my concerns by remarks like “Yes, a lot to take in. But this is why most of you have no real understanding of the processes taking place.” & let me explain why.
We have been studying the ugly truth about fracking for 4/5 years in many cases & consider that this highly fractured, highly populated island community has enough health issues to deal with as things stand so industry pundits like yourself taking smart mouthed attitudes will forever fall on deaf ears.
We don’t want your filthy practices, your chemical injections, your inability to invent a way to clean up radioactive returning frack fluids nor your unmitigated barefaced LIES about well integrity being beyond rupture or decay.
You are not dealing with the easily fooled, nor are you dealing with someone who has no experience of the malpractices within the oil & gas industry. My husband worked for BP offshore for many years & interestingly was never informed of the extreme toxicity of the drilling muds he was handling every day. His clothing was not designed to protect him from radioactivity nor chemical toxicity & he died, like many others of cancer in 2013.
So get off your smart high horse & tell it to the wind,chum.
Your business stinks & so do you for attempting to talk down to someone who watched the giant of a man she loved succumb over more than 20 years to a sickness that nobody could cure & that the industry you are so proud of denies responsibility. You Sir, are a disgrace.
Frances – apologies, so you are qualified to comment on the technical issues. But pipelines and wellbores are two very different things. The primary point I am trying to make on this BB is that gas is not going to go away anytime soon. All the forecast scenarios show extensive gas use until 2050 at least. The second point I am trying to make is that fugitive emissions of shale gas are not a lot different, probably less than, conventional offshore gas / imported gas / LNG. How much shale gas is on production in Australia? I am not making this up. Where are all the modern well integrity failures? How will delpeted shale wells filled with cement leak gas to surface? Where will this gas come from.
And I have made my position clear – we need gas, lots of it, going forward, and it makes no difference to me whether it is from UK shale, UK offshore, Norwegian offshore or LNG from Qatar or the US. As long as we have the gas we need. No one on this board has explained how we can generate reliable electricity / heat our homes without a large percentage of natural gas in the mix. Lots say we should go to 100% renewables but don’t say how. The greenest forecast from the National Grid future scenarios contains roughly the same amount of natural gas as does the market forces scenario; the main difference is the former has no UK shale gas, the latter includes some.
Attack shale by all means but in my opinion (and it would appear to also be the opinion of our statutory bodies) fugitive emissions, well integrity and down hole issues are not valid reasons for stopping shale gas drilling in the UK. If these are valid reasons there should be no hydrocarbon production of any kind anywhere. The planning system however is another matter where noise, traffic, amenity impact etc. are valid reasons.
Your whole bullying dialogue shows no concern for urgency in reducing atmospheric Co2 – thus reflects short-term self-interest and nothing towards long-term sustainability. What you say is therefore only of use to the ‘snouts in the trough’ investors in a crude, damaging non-solution.
Mike, have you anything to add to the discussion? What is your alternative to the four National Grid scenarios? How and when can we switch to 100% renewables? Why is man made CO2 output dropping significantly in the US? CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and down with time, the planet warms and cools. We are here for a small piece of geological time. I have no problem with reducing CO2 generated by mankind, the problem I have is that it is not going to happen fast enough to make any difference, and I am a strong advocate of adapting to climate change because it is happening / will continue to happen. But I don’t believe it can be stopped. I am allowed to think like this? If you are worried about long term sustainability how do you sleep at night? There are too many people on our planet for “long term sustainability”. I offer no solution for this and nor do any Governments.But I thought we were discussing methane emissions not CO2? Methane is methane, whatever the source it generates equal amounts of CO2.
Bullying dialogue? If this is what trying to get facts on this BB is then unfortunately I am guilty as charged.
There have been several wells fracked in the UK over the past 30 years
Oh Victor! LOL. Do keep up.
Wow. Take it easy lady. You sound like you have a fire ant in your pant. Name calling and blaming other people without evidence is desperate and lame.
I’ll take it you’re just another ‘snout in the trough’ as well as having misogynist tendencies.
Methane is a problem for the fracking industry and our planet. We do not need fracking – the world is awash with hydrocarbons. The sooner fossil fuels are phased out the better.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/us-likely-culprit-of-global-spike-in-methane-emissions-over-last-decade
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6591
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/16/nasa-study-nails-fracking-source-massive-methane-hot-spot
Once again, the potential increase in the release of Radon is overlooked. Clearly, hydraulic fracturing below the surface facilitates to transmission of this radioactive gas to the surface, The subject has been repeatedly dismissed by the Environment Agency.
I am enjoying this tonight – “Clearly” – please explain this. I agree that flowback fluid may contain a limited amount of NORM but how does this compare with living in a house in Aberdeen or Cornwall?
Actually mimoradwell, the regulators haven’t overlooked radon at all.
For instance, in exploratory fracking when gas is flared for up to 90 days during the initial well testing period, any inert radon present in the hydrocarbon gas stream will pass through the flare unaltered and be released to atmosphere. Shale gas operators are required to assess the likely radon concentrations and model point-source air emissions as part of a Radiological Impact Assessment that the environmental regulator reviews and either accepts or rejects (usually requiring additional information or requesting any errant calculations be corrected). This RIA modelling has confirmed there is no additional risk to local communities as a consequence of radon release.
In production, gas will be piped into the distribution system and carried around the UK to homes and businesses. At the point of use, radon will be present in the gas. But this is no different to so-called ‘conventional’ gas from onshore and offshore UK Continental Shelf sources which also contain very low concentrations of radon.
A DW Dixon from the former National Radiological Protection Board (subsequently part of the Health Protection Agency and now Public Health England) commented on radon exposures from cooking with natural gas in a 2002 NRPB newsletter. He said at the time: “In homes where natural gas (methane) is used for cooking and heating, radon in the gas can make a contribution to the indoor radon level. Trace amounts of radon are carried from the underground source of the gas and released during combustion.”
He went on to say “On the assumption that a household uses about 100 m3 of gas annually for cooking, natural gas contributes only about 0.2% of the average indoor radon level. Such low levels are generally considered to be within the range that might reasonably be regarded as trivial.”
According to NRPB estimates, a person has a 3% risk of dying from lung cancer if they live their entire life in a house at the radon Action Level of 200 Becquerels per cubic metre.
Radon in natural gas contributes around 0.5% of this Action Level.
DW Dixon went on to say that:
“…radon levels in virtually all sources of UK gas are currently well below the threshold.”
Public Health England, in its 2014 report, also considered radon risks and concluded: “It is considered unlikely that shale gas extraction and related activities would lead to any significant increase in public exposure from outdoor radon levels or indoor levels in nearby homes. In common with other sources of natural gas, there may be a potential for radiation exposure from radon in natural gas obtained from shale gas extraction but at very low levels.”
You can read the PHE report here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332837/PHE-CRCE-009_3-7-14.pdf
Since all wells leak eventually, is the Baroness really expecting the cash-strapped environment agency to monitor thousands of wells on a site by site basis for ever? Self-regulation by the industry can’t be trusted. That was shown to be true when Cuadrilla took six months to report the problems with the well at Preese Hall back in 2011. In any case the companies will already have taken the money and run, probably to the Cayman Islands.
Baroness Neville- Rolfe’s waffling on would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. And just as funny is the comment in the letter just sent to Theresa May by 36 Tory MPs urging her to spend the Brexit billions on improving the environment. It points out the green achievements of previous Conservative Governments and says, “Integral to Conservative philosophy is a deep cultural commitment to handing over a better world to our children.” They must be joking!
Pauline – proof of this please? “since all wells leak eventually”? Are you talking geological time, 100 years, a million years? More anti propaganda rubbish. Sit back and have a look at what you are saying. A 5,000m well for example, with 5,000m of cement in a annulus between a 8-1/2″ diameter hole and a 7″ steel casing. The inside of the casing is plugged with 1,000m of cement and several mechanical bridge plugs. Please explain how this 5km well will leak “eventually”
“All wells leak eventually” stems from a SLB paper dating back to 2003 here https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.pdf but it’s clearly all about offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico on the USCS – not land wells.
Still, what it highlights is the extent to which the industry is constantly innovating and improving in order to avoid such problems. It also shows that it’s possible to identify and fix problems.
Published in Oilfield Review, a Schlumberger publication, ironically Schlumberger are (or at least were then) in the business of selling drilling fluids (MI), cement and additives (Dowell) and cement evaluation logging tools (Schlumberger Wireline). The wells discussed bare little resemblance to what we are discussing on this BB – UK onshore shale gas wells – wells which will be cemented to surface and will have very limited productivity, zero primary permeability and very low porosity. The shale wells when depleted will be exactly that – depleted. And as you point out this was published 13 years ago. The main problems cementing wells these days are in deep water with low fracture gradients – like BP’s Macondo – where complex light weight slurries with nitrogen etc. are required to prevent breaking down weak formations due to the water depth. Macondo was not caused specifically by cement failure – this appears to have been mechanical failure of float equipment and poor practice during the inflow test.
Ah Schlumberger, the guys responsible for the cement around BP’s Deepwater Horizon well (Gulf of Mexico). 1000’s of livelihood wrecked but only 11 lives lost! Though BP were probably cutting corners when cutting short their inspection.
The Ex Vice President of Mobil, Louis Allstadt, says all wells leak eventually. Maybe his advisers have got it wrong and actually mild steel and concrete in varying geological formations and environments never corrode. Must just be salt that’s a problem.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17605-former-mobil-vp-warns-of-fracking-and-climate-change
Cuadrilla have had just one go at fracking in the Fylde in 2011. In spite of Gold Standard Regulations It went wrong, that’s why are they still not fracking in 2016. Have they suddenly found the recipe?
Complete overhaul of management and management systems; acquisition of 3D seismic imaging of the subsurface that enables the identification and avoidance of faults prone to slippage (previously only had 2D images); now partnered with Centrica that has a vast amount of operating experience from all over the world…it’s almost like there’s the Original Cuadrilla and the New and Improved Cuadrilla. Plus there’s much greater clarity and visibility of which regulations apply and how.
Personally, I think it’s pretty unfair to keep beating them up for sins of the past – let’s see them perform their obligations now, with two small test sites, and if they balls up again, fair enough; but if they don’t, maybe stop attacking the company itself and campaign against onshore natural gas extraction?
Don’t forget, like all businesses, it’s run by ordinary people – people just getting on with doing a job and earning a living; people just like the rest of us, that want to do a good job and get it right.
You are confused on this point enviromentor. I will correct you.’Original Cuadrilla’ is the best. They have told us.
‘Members of Cuadrilla’s management team have each played leading roles in the drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing of more than 3,000 natural gas and oil wells across the world. Cuadrilla is aiming to be a “model company” for unconventional exploration in the UK. It is acutely aware of the responsibilities this brings, particularly with regard to safety, environmental protection and working with local communities’
These Guys are top banana. They have been all over the planet gaining experience and making a thoroughly good job.
Obviously they will have pulled out all the stops and used their wealth of experience to make sure the first UK job went swimmingly well.
Preese Hall is as good as it will get. It went well don’t you think. 3D not around then?
“acquisition of 3D seismic imaging of the subsurface that enables the identification and avoidance of faults prone to slippage (previously only had 2D images)” – clearly this is VERY important Lee – remind us what percentage of their PEDL has been mapped in this way and shy it wasn’t done before Preese Hall …
PS new improved Cuadrilla? I haven’t laughed so much in ages!
Is it just me, or does @_environmentor sound suspiciously like he or she works for the fracking industry and is employed to spend his/her time writing stuff on comments sections?
Not to say that people from the fracking industry shouldn’t comment on posts here or anywhere else, of course – as we can see, people like a good argument – but why not come out and say who you are and who you work for – or not?
I agree that some comments on all of Ruth’s articles seem to come from those protecting their own earnings or consciences. But knowing how they defend is necessary for us to discern where their achilles tendons lie & attack more efficiently.
Ditto for Paul Tresco
Mike – most on this BB know my background. My comments are based on direct experience. Now retired.
Hi Chris,
Sorry, I assumed I was well enough known by now!
@_environmentor is my Twitter handle, so I’m pretty easy to find and hiding nothing. I’m an environmental consultant with 20 years experience.
In 2012, my company — Remsol — was engaged by Cuadrilla to research, identify, test and prove a safe and effective method of treating and disposing of flowback wastewater which we did successfully (more here http://resource.co/article/Comment/water039s_fine-3365). We also compiled and submitted ‘duly-made’ environmental permit applications for its earlier sites.
Remsol is based in Lancashire, which is where I also live with my family – about 6 miles from Cuadrilla’s proposed Roseacre Wood site as the crow flies. We breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat crops from the same land as everyone else here, including shale gas opponents, but I do not share the view that it can’t be done safely and that it will negatively impact public health; if I thought that, I wouldn’t support it and I wouldn’t want it near where I live.
In the course of my work, I come across companies doing far more hazardous stuff with potentially higher risks (likelihood x severity) than shale gas extraction, but they all get on without posing any detriment.
For instance, one of my former clients is a chemical company that manufactures phosgene, a WWI chemical weapon – the nearest homes are about 300m away in one direction and the nearby village centre about half a mile in the other. There’s never been a problem and that’s partly because of our regulatory prowess in this country and partly because of the company’s commitment to working safely.
If a chemical plant handling gaseous phosgene can co-exist with communities and agriculture (and that’s just one example – the Springfields nuclear fuel plant half way between my home and Roseacre Wood is another, where they regularly accept enriched uranium and uranium hexafluoride delivered by road) then I’m pretty certain shale gas can too.
I happen to believe that it could create jobs and opportunities for local SMEs like mine here in Lancashire, and help boost the county’s fortunes.
Lee – I am confused – you seem to have started out with the vested interest you describe above (which to be fair you were upfront about) , then you claimed for a while that you would NOT be working with Cuadrilla but didn’t explain why, although you remained their chief cheerleader – now you say fracking could “create opportunities for local SMEs like mine ” – so – do you have a financial interest in fracking or not, via Remsol or otherwise?
You believe that shale gas is going to ‘help boost the county’s fortunes’. As a business man you will be familiar with the need to make profit.
In case you have not read my numerous articles on the production cost of UK shale here is just some of the facts that prove shale is not viable.
Let’s remind ourselves of what the Industry spokesman told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee regarding the cost of UK shale production.
“It is very very simple the shale gas Industry in the UK. If we can bring this stuff to market for about $8 a MMBTU it is a very commercially viable Industry. If it is going to take $15 to bring to market it is not viable”
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b05e83ee-5d8a-4f48-bc34-8d4b75f6a0db
So the cheapest they could bring it in is $8 (works out at 61.2p per therm) to make profit ( which concurs other UK sources and US break even averages)
Recent wholesale price under 40p per therm. Note that the price has been under the 61.2p all of 2015 as well
http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/gas/historic-price-data-graph.htm
As Mr Egan stated on Hard talk on 25/01/2016
” Forcasting the oil and gas price is a mugs game”
I think Investors will have serious concerns over the fact that gas prices are 30% less than shale can be produced for. Not knowing what your product will sell for when you have the dearest source sounds like a ‘ mugs Game’ to me.
Of course you could be in the minority who think oil and gas prices will rocket and that OPEC will give market share back to the US but none of the foercasts or common sense would suggest that is going to happen. Norway are set to lower prices to 20p per therm to insure they do not loose market share to imported LNG, running at 33p per therm.
I am sure prices will increase to maximise OPEC profit. As soon as US drillers start up their rigs prices will drop again. Basic economics.
Your suggestions that the UK would deploy ‘Gold Standards’, no open pits,wastewater treatment,green completion etc would of course increase costs dramatically.
The world is awash with cheap oil and gas with everyone rushing to make sure they sell theirs first. Next to tar sands shale is the dearest oil and gas (obvious as it has been left to the last) and as Jerome Ferrier (President of the International Gas Union) stated at the 2015 World Gas Conference 2015 ” The future of gas does not depend on shale gas-there is enough conventional gas to meet demand for more than a century”
I look forward to the business community who support shale proving these figures are incorrect and supplying factual evidence that UK shale will make money.
Ah, OK. So let me get this straight. You work for a company that stands to make a huge amount of money if fracking goes ahead. Forgive me, therefore, if I take your patronising tone and biased comments with a very large pinch of salt.
“Sorry, I assumed I was well enough known by now”… don’t believe your own publicity, mate! (and you still didn’t say what your name was …).
You’re right Chris. I understand @environmentor is Lee Petts of Remsol. Perhaps that’s why he’s so shy of using his own name. He’s one of the leading ‘I’m Backing Frackers.’ He hopes to make a fortune out of this business, that’s why he’s so desperate to defend Cuadrilla.
Ha! You ‘understand’ I’m Lee Petts of Remsol Pauline? I posted a reply to Chris at midnight last night (before you posted this at 7:32am) in which I explained exactly who I am – I’ve nothing to hide, and post under @_environmentor for consistency and because that’s part of my personal ‘brand’ and makes me easy to find.
As you your comment that I’m hoping to ‘make a fortune out of this business’ you couldn’t be more wrong. We were going to be managing the treatment and disposal of flowback wastewater for Cuadrilla but it’s since taken that in-house. We have no future work in prospect with Cuadrilla or any other operator, which I’ve been open and clear about numerous times now.
I find it quite sad that people like you constantly try and use the ‘vested interests’ argument against anyone that expresses support for shale gas, rather than just accepting that different points of view exist — and that people are entitled to hold opposing positions — and then calmly and rationally discussing issues of concern (which is what you’ll see from my posts here is what I’m doing).
“I find it quite sad that people like you constantly try and use the ‘vested interests’ argument”
Well Lee you can probably imagine how we all feel when your pals rattle on about us being funded by Putin then, can’t you? I wonder if that’s happened yet on this page? Oh so it has, what a surprise LOL – mind you that was just Ken Wilkinson posting as Anon and nobody listens to him do they?
Ain’t these anti frackers work for FOE whos has investex in renewables and other who support fossil fuel fron offshore drilling. Isn’t it a bit funny the anti fossil fuel greenie sleeping in bed together with an offshore oil advocates to beat up the onshore frackers. I find it such double standard.
TW – time for your medication I think. Nurse!
+TW think you need a downer, look under the settee.
And the survey that you commissioned that shows shale is not supported…you are going to ignore that?
my personal ‘brand’?
Lee – have you thought of going onto The Apprentice – you’d fit right in you know! 😉
Just to point out that if we’re on the subject of methane emissions, the agriculture industry is the biggest single source of fugitive methane, approximately 20% worldwide, primarily of course from lifestock production and associated manure management. Vegetarians might say that this is an completely avoidable source. But I guess we wouldn’t see crowds of people protesting against a new dairy farm. Why, perhaps because farming is familiar, seen as safe (even though it isn’t in terms of fugitive gases), and the need is obvious. Well to my way of thinking with 80% of homes being heated by gas, then it is a priority national need, in the same league as food production.
Don’t be ridiculous man! There are far fewer animals farting their way through life now than just a few hundred years ago. Massive herds of farty creatures have gone extinct since the industrial revolution & the vast responsibility for gaseous imbalances lies squarely with the enforced addiction to fossil fuels that has been foisted upon the human race because that disgusting industry destroyed all forms of competition in it’s effort to rule the world financially.
We changed to gas rather quickly didn’t we? We can change again to renewables.
Sorry Frances, but Mark is correct. Take a look here to get an overview of global GHG emissions including from agriculture https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data There are loads of resources online that discuss CH4 emissions from livestock, such as this 2006 coverage of a UN report by The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html and this from The Guardian in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/tax-meat-cut-methane-emissions-scientists
Mark. I can’t understand the argument that agriculture is responsible for methane emissions. As long as people continue to consume meat and dairy products it will be necessary to rear cattle. The point is that fracking activities cause additional methane emissions, and whilst cattle are necessary unless everyone is willing to become vegan, there is no necessity for fracking. Unless of course you stand to make big money out of it.
I believe Mark is an investor in one of the companies who have licences to frack.