Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 25 August 2017. Photo: Ros Wills
Just one in seven women would be happy about living within five miles of a fracking site, according to a new opinion poll.
The survey also found that almost three-quarters of Labour voters would be unhappy about fracking in their area
Overall, fewer people would be happy about living near a local fracking site than a small nuclear reactor.
But about two-thirds of people would be happy about an onshore wind farm or a single turbine locally.
The survey, by YouGov for the climate change organisation 10:10, sampled 1,660 UK adults randomly selected from the YouGov panel on 12-13 September 2017.
Gender
When asked how people felt about a fracking site within five miles of their home, only 14% of women said they were happy, compared with 65% who said they were unhappy. The figures for men were 25% happy and 58% unhappy.
Women were more likely to say don’t know (22% compared with 15% for men). But the overall figure for “don’t know” of 18% in this survey was much lower than the 51% recorded in the government’s quarterly WAVE tracker survey for “don’t know” or neither “support nor oppose”. (DrillOrDrop report on the latest WAVE results)
Politics
Only one in seven (14%) Labour voters would be happy about living near a fracking site, compared with 71% who would be unhappy and 16% unsure.
Even among people who voted Conservative, the single large party which supports fracking, just over half (55%) would be unhappy about living near a fracking site. 31% would be happy and 14% said they didn’t know.
Two-thirds of Lib Dem voters would be unhappy about a fracking site in their area, compared with 22% who would be happy and 12% who didn’t know.
How people voted in the 2016 EU referendum appears to make little difference in their attitudes to fracking. 19% of Remain voters were happy about living near a fracking site, compared with 23% of Leave voters.
Age
As with other surveys, support for fracking was higher among older people. Just 14% of people aged 18-24 were happy about the idea of living near a fracking site, compared with 27% of people aged 65+.
But the proportion of people who said they would be unhappy about living near a fracking site was little different across the age groups. Younger people were much more likely to say “don’t know” than people aged 50+.
Categories: Research
DRILL OR DROP? 
Irrelevant logic. Would you say dropping an atom bomb on the UK cannot be proven harmful because there is no uk data to show any such harm? No reference to google needed.
Jack-the clue is in his previous occupation! Do oil companies like oil prices at $50/barrel? Most of them do not-unless they invested in fracking. Simples.
Sorry Martin, that is a completely ridiculous explanation as to why he has adopted an anti fracking stance …
But thanks for the laugh …
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please either read the transcripts of this interview, or watch the video and make up your own minds.
Do you take Martin’s view on this matter, or do you believe what the ex – vice president of one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies is saying , when he warns of the dangers of the Fracking .
Here is the link again
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/223239-us-fracking-industry-pollution/
The choice is yours …….
Jack, who cares if a former oil executive has adopted an anti-fracking stance? It should only matter if he has something to bring to the discussion that is new or underappreciated. In this case, this is clearly not happening. Allstadt worked for a company that was not involved in fracking, and he didn’t know much about the process when he retired many years ago. He is no more able to give an expert opinion on the subject than I am. This is why he has been disregarded by most of the media after a brief period of interest. Now it is only sites such as the much maligned RT, that will actually give him air time.
Move along! Nothing to see here!
Ladies and gentlemen
Refricktion says, that a Vice President of one of the world’s largest Oil and Gas companies is no more able to give a better, knowledgeable, informed opinion on the subject of fracking than he is.
Is anyone buying that one ???
Refricktion can you also please show us exactly where you have gained the credible evidence which gives you the authority to say that this vice president did not , quote, ” fracking he did not know much about the process when he retired ”
HOW DO YOU know that Refricktion ??
Regarding the media …… do you really want to go in to a debate about the media .. Anyone with a brain larger than that of an earth worm has a clear understanding of the mainstream media bias towards certain topics ….
You try and discredit the RT news channel without backing your words up with a SINGLE SHRED of evidence… What do you base your opinion on that this is a, quote, ” maligned ” news channel..
One last question, can you please advise us as to what mainstream news outlet we should all be watching, reading or listening to ?
[Comment edited at poster’s request]
I know that, Jackthelad, because I did my homework. I’m not willing to listen to the Pied Piper, and dance to his tune, as you are. I appreciate truly independent research and empirical data.
Here’s a quote that contains an admission from the man (Allstadt) himself – “Before his retirement he wasn’t aware of a new, sophisticated form of rock fracture, high-volume hydraulic fracturing, developed only in the late 1990s. “It just wasn’t on our radar at that time,” he said. “We were heavily focused on developing conventional oil and gas offshore in deep water.” Understand that most of the major integrated e&p companies were late to the game on fracking. It was the small, nimble, entrepreneurial firms that first commercialized the technology.
Jackthelad, you don’t have to “buy” these facts. Nonetheless, they are the facts.
The RT news channel is a Russian propaganda tool. If you choose to believe that the views expressed on that network are objective and unbiased, that is your business. I, however, have found their programming to be dubious at best. I am not alone in my views: http://fortune.com/2017/09/17/russia-network-rt-propaganda/
I’m not going to counsel you on what media you should listen to, Jackthelad. Most have biases, but some are more obvious and dogged about it than others. I think that you are susceptible to being taken in by Green-oriented media.
Refricktion ……..
It’s all in the wording …..
The explosion in fracking has only come about in the last, approx 15 years ……
WHY WOULD a company such as Mobil Oil of even considered the costly process of Oil and Gas extraction from shale before this time ????
After all, they were doing very nicely with their more conventional Oil and Gas projects.
In response to your above post…..
The ex- Mobil Oil, Vice President refers to a time prior to his retirement which was in the year 2000..
17 YEARS HAVE NOW ELAPSED since his retirement and what he is now saying, is that during that time he has learnt that fracking is not safe.
Ladies and Gentlemen let’s not forget …… this man , Mr Lou Allstadt was the Vice President of one of the world’s leading Oil and Gas companies . He clearly is a well educated man with a sound knowledge of the Oil and Gas industry,.
Lou Allstadt is NOT some Pizza Delivery boy putting his opinions forward in the media …. He has a proven 31 YEAR track record in the Oil and Gas industry, unlike you Refricktion who may well be a Pizza Delivery Boy for all we know …..
You certainly are not able to show us your proven track record in the industry which can give you the authourity to superceed and downgrade the opinions of this ex-vice president.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the choice is yours as to whether you take this ex-Mobil Oil, vice presidents advice .
Agreed, Jackthelad. Allstadt has come to the same conclusions you have, not based on any industry experience with fracking, but based on his experience as a retiree. So, what? The point is that he doesn’t have access to any privileged information or insights that come from first-hand experience with fracking to inform his viewpoint. He knows as much about fracking as the Domino’s pizza delivery boy.
Yet you and your hype-filled propaganda site attempt to make a very big deal of the ide that he speaks from the point of view of someone with experience. This is misleading in the extreme as he has no fracking experience.
I don’t need to tell you that my opinions are any more valid than Allstadt’s (conversely his are no more valid than mine). Rather, I rely on facts, empirical data, and independent scientific bodies for my information. These data sources are more valid than your activist propaganda, Jackthelad.
Refricktion ……..
AS far as RT being a Russian Propaganda news outlet, I’m still laughing at that one ..
When you take note of some of the blatent, in your face , fake news propaganda spun by some UK and US media outlets, it’s a bit rich to solely, single out RT.
I didn’t single out RT. You chose them as a media source, not me. I merely pointed out that they are widely believed to be a propaganda network for the Ruskies.
Refricktion
NO , what some of the UK and US mainstream media and their pupetmasters don’t like is any other media outlet that questions their controlled narrative on particular issues …
Refricktion, RT widely believed to be a Russian propaganda news outlet by who ??
From the left-leaning NY Times, the Obama administration, and the US intelligence community. And, if you believe the NY Times, most Western democratic governments, Jackthelad. But perhaps Jackthelad has greater knowledge than these institutions, or perhaps it is one enormous conspiracy, – you anti-frackers love to play that card, am I right? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.html
Here’s an article from Bloomberg (also left-leaning, and usually anti-fossil fuel) speaking to the anti-fracking propaganda issued by RT…. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/putin-s-other-american-propaganda-effort-anti-fracking-news
Sorry that none of this comports with your fairy tale Green world of hype, Jackthelad.
Ok Rrfricktion
Is that your source of reliable information ??
People with any intelligence are well aware, how some parts of the US ” corparate owned ” mainstream media and government despise RT for showing a different angles on news stories….
Yes, Jackthelad, I knew that you would come back to the whole conspiracy theory argument. When you have nothing else to combat the facts with, it will always do! If you are delusional enough to honestly think that Bloomberg and the NYT as well as the Obama administration are all involved in a big conspiracy and you’re willing to ignore the facts they’ve supplied, then there’s really nothing left to say but good luck!
Propaganda, Refraction,
We are still laughing in the UK as to how some parts of the ” corporate owned ” media in the US are still relentlessly demonizing Donald Trump .. Not their first choice for President.. eh
The only thing they haven’t yet accused him of is being is the anti-Christ and the reincarnation of Hitler.
Oh and they also blame RT for brainwashing the US electorate in not voting the right way ( their way) ….. It’s truly laughable Refrickrion ….. Surely you can see it , can’t you ???
Refricktion,
There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See
Exactly my sentiment, Jackthelad.
Jack-you are younger than I thought. I will not say more.
Except-what a great picture by Ros Wills at the head of this post. A picture of a sprawl of industrialisation raping the countryside, or an image of a neat and tidy piece of equipment that you would not bat an eyelid at if it was sited at Alton Towers? Trust the viewing area is being well utilised now schools are back to show the kiddies that we used to have some industrial expertise and there is little reason why we can not rediscover it-but a secure and cost efficient energy policy will be at the heart of that. (I doubt it-too many left wing teachers.)
Talking of which, everyone has missed Ineos latest comment that they are focusing down on possible sites for their new car plant. One is a new site in the North East, the others are existing sites overseas. I just wonder (no) what may persuade them to pick the North East?? The big boys play hardball. Get used to it.
No please Martin, do say more . I would like to know exactly what you are trying to say …
You are totally out of your depth with this one. Trying to discredit the warnings spoken by the ex vice president of the one of world’s largest oil and gas companies ( Mobil ) as he warns us of the dangers associated with fracking .
Martin…”The big boys play hardball. Get used to it.” – says you completely avoiding the previous point. I see you don’t like ‘hardball’ when it comes to debate. The title of Jack the Lads link is “Ex-Mobil VP: Fracking companies push people out of homes (and then buy their silence)”. So that’s the kind of hardball you think UK residents should get used to??
Nature plays hardball too. Please try and take in this climate recap – it’s just from the last few days – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpvXv71ijQ0 – and before we hear those hackneyed lines again like ‘yeah yeah the earth’s been through all this before, we just see more of it now due to the internet’ try and recognise that today there are climate refugees from the north of Alaska to the middle Pacific, to the Horn of Africa . Not only are various peoples saying these extremes go beyond living memory but they go beyond their populations’ ancestral memories. Because of ocean warming and acidification from greater amounts of dissolved CO2 there’s been a 70% die off of the Great Barrier Reef – the largest connected body of organisms on the planet (10,000+ years in building into its current form) and we’re now facing the most precipitous decline in living species (discernible throughout both history and prehistory) and starting to get back-to-back crop failures in different parts of the world. Your response would be …get used to it?… thanks! I’d say there are clear alternatives to fossil fuels and we’d better get used to that – fast.
And because all of that, Philip, you would rather see the UK import gas from far away places and leave a higher carbon footprint? Not sure I follow your logic at all!
I’d like to see you prove that leakage from existing wells and shipping has a bigger footprint overall that ramping up a whole new set of wells (adding to the global total) and building up a new industry here. That only makes economic sense if you’re expecting at least a 30-50 yr life out of it. By so doing you’re in effect building up many more sources of leakage and prolonging the fossil fuel dependency lifetime by a considerable measure. Better to help friendly nations run down their supplies while NOT building any more wells – anywhere. Bear in mind also that there is a disproportionate amount of leakage, deisel usage (haulage/fracking/pumping), particulate and contaminant releases and other health, accident and environmental risk factors all concentrated around the period from drilling to completion – and we’re talking about new wells by the thousand. Following the logic now?
Philip, this is a simple matter of logic. I assume that a gas well in the UK will produce the same amount of net emissions as a well in the US or Qatar or Russia. This may be inaccurate to the extent that gas wells in the UK will be using the newest technology to prevent emissions while the foreign wells could be older, and might be using more dated technology – but we will disregard this consideration for now.
Obviously gas from the US/Qatar has to undergo the same gathering and processing that would happen in the UK (where much of this infrastructure already exists). But the supply chain is much longer and more complicated when gas is imported. That leaves more opportunity for leakage. It also requires more energy for movement. In particular, liquification and regassification require high energy inputs, as does transportation. Extending the supply chain means more methane leakage. Look at the case of Russia, where the amount of gas loss in piplelines is an extraordinary 50% or so.
That’s what you’re fighting for, Philip. You will do more damage to the environment which you claim to be crusading to protect under your plan to avoid onshore gas production. And BTW, the Mobil executive has admitted that he has no professional experience with fracking. He’s a crackpot, just like you and me.
The Mobil exec has direct experience of fracking – in his own neighbourhood. It is that direct observational evidence and the thousands of other similar cases that really does call the bluff of the fracking propagandists. To suggest he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he admits to having no direct experience is the exact same argument was used about the expert Tony Ingraphea by the old Peeny ‘expert’ (is that you?). Bluff was called on that one too.Frankly I get so sick of debates where misinformation is used in such a low minded way. It’s just despicable.
Yes, and fracking is also done in my neighborhood. Yet I don’t hold myself out as some sort of expert because of it.
Please, Philip, explain what sort of information advantage Mr. Allstadt would have in terms of perspectives on the dangers of fracking? Please demonstrate exactly how that advantage has manifested itself in facts that Mr Allstadt has brought to light that contradict those offered by the EPA, the NAS, the Royal Society, the Susquehanna River Watershed Commission, the US Geological Survey, California Council on Science and Technology, Wyoming Dept of Env Quality, US Dept of Energy’s Naitonal Technology Laboratory.
Also, you have failed to respond to my request that you reconcile your crusade for policies that help curb GHG emissions with your crusade against domestic shale gas production. Your stance in favor of the continued use of imported gas is at odds with your crusade against GHG emissions to the extent that lower GHG-emitting domestic nat gas could supplant imported gas.
It’s a hypocritical point of view, would you not agree?
And by the way, Philip, if you’re going to mention one of your “experts,” you might want to consider spelling his name correctly. It’s “Ingraffea” not “Ingraphea.” Also, if you’ll adjust your memory an iota, you will recall that Ingraffea was faulted not mainly for his lack of direct experience, but for the lack of scientific rigor in his work. Dozens of scientists have called him out for using questionable data and for coming to conclusions that are not warranted by the data which supposedly supported the conclusion. Even Ingraffea has admitted that his work and wording are “advocacy laden.”
Isn’t selective memory wonderful, Philip? It certainly aids confirmation bias!
Touche on the typo Refricktion – or should we still call you Fibonacci? I normally use the Ingraffea’s name correctly but yes I concede a couple of points there. Well done. His initial PhD was in rock fracture mechanics and he’s widely published and cited in the field of shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing. He was working with teams developing the methods which preceded the current rapid expansion of the techniques. There’s not much he doesn’t know about the industry. With commercial exploitation came the pushing of the boundaries of what were considered safe best practices. The fracking techniques became over-driven (far too rapidly in his view) and in the last 15 years HVHF developments are operating in a territory that has not been proven as safe or as environmentally friendly as its promoters, investors and propagandists claim. He has pioneered the different forms of top-down measurement and different means of identifying rogue emissions and methane migration and has made more (drilling) site visits than you could shake a stick at. More than you have I bet. His position and views are sound.
Please tell us about your own qualifications Refricktion. I would be interested to read a few of your papers and most quoted citations.
What I can’t abide is the bearing of false witness against honest people with genuine expertise. And I don’t intend to go around the ‘Energy in Depth’ style propaganda that you serve up in the rest of your challenge except to say that several of those agencies base their position statements on whatever the EPA publishes and as we all know the EPA has been progressively kneecapped over what can and can’t say – it’s own scientists are bearing witness to this. With Republicans (and their Fossil Fuel interests) dominating congress and senate for so long now they’ve achieved there ultimate victory in the appointment rabidly climate-change denying Scott Pruitt… should we believe anything they come up with any more?
Jack the Lad has provided enough links to medical and other agencies (and I have in the past too) to substantiate Ingraffea’s observation that the risks are real and more time is needed for their full evaluation. Some health and environmental impacts take ten years or more to become self evident. Why should our population bear those exposures and long term costs that the industry doesn’t want to face up to? As noted before the risks get socialised while the profits get privatized and corporatised. Money to be made for those of you who know how to game the system eh?
You claim: “His initial PhD was in rock fracture mechanics and he’s widely published and cited in the field of shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing. He was working with teams developing the methods which preceded the current rapid expansion of the techniques. There’s not much he doesn’t know about the industry.”
But you are way off here, Philip. Sure he has a PhD in fracture mechanics, and yes he has done bench work for industry people in a small study regarding shale gas extraction. But this basic knowledge doesn’t translate into knowing almost everything about the industry as you imply. Far from it.
Ingraffea has admitted to not having any direct industry experience. But I don’t really care about that. What I care about is the legions of scientists who have faulted his work for lack of rigor, and for jumping to unsupported conclusions. As Michael Levy from the Council on Foreign Relations wrote, “Alas, [the Cornell] analysis is based on extremely weak data, and also has a severe methodological flaw (plus some other questionable decisions), all of which means that his bottom line conclusions shouldn’t carry weight.”
There is a reason his work is widely disregarded. There is a reason that independent scientific institutions have come to conclusions directly at odds with Ingraffea’s work. He is a crackpot – but he is obviously still very useful to your cause, Philip. Because there are a lot of “Jackthelad”s out there who just want to believe.
And you still refuse to answer my question about your hypocritical crusade, huh Philip?
Baloney – you haven’t answered the initial challenge. The logic of my position is clear enough, and the track record of Ingraffea can be looked up by anyone. The cherry picked stuff that he has been criticised with is really pretty shallow. Are you aware that the techniques you use is the copy-book style of attack that’s used to de-legitimize someone who speaks out against a powerful interest/lobby group – to remove credibility. The templates were laid down in by the PR and lobbying interests serving the tobacco industry and are becoming almost instantly recognizable. So I’m really interested in your credential’s. Please explain your profession. And why did you change your name from Fibonacci?
This should interest anyone observing the tricks of powerful lobbyists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s
No, Philip. I haven’t run from one single challenge. You, on the other hand, have yet to reconcile your hypocritical crusade against greenhouse gasses as someone who is arguing for the importation of high GHG nat gas.
You can bury your head in the sand re Ingraffea. In fact, doing so is SOP for anti-frackers, so it is no surprise. But the FACTS are the FACTS, and Ingraffea has tried to bend them to support his activism. This isn’t opinion, Philip, the trainwreckage of Ingraffea’s “work” is out there in black and white for all to read. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS, Philip.
Yes. Facts are facts – and fake facts are fake facts. Let’s leave others to do their own research.
It must bother you that you cannot reconcile your stance against GHG with your desire to import natural gas. It isn’t very intellectually honest, is it?
My points and reasons have certainly not been refuted by you. The arguments are quite clear and the lack of comprehension on your part is not my failing. Nevertheless you will not be able to prove your side of the argument until you provide metrics on the leakage and inefficiencies of LNG conversion and transport versus the wide range of problems England would be facing while introducing tens of thousands of wells to its countryside.
The ramping up period would be the worst and least profitable given that the UK’s roads and population density are not favourable to that.That point has already been made by much larger oil and gas companies than any operations we’re seeing here now, and it’s why they are steering clear. The the drilling would have to be relentless, and multiplying itself like a virus for many years until the ‘magic’ energy self-sufficiency is anywhere near attainable.
A simple sum for you: how many thousand wells would it take to achieve that promised self sufficiency for the UK?, then, given that for each well around 50% of it’s gas is exhausted after one year how many hundreds of wells would have to be drilled each year (month even) to sustain that level of output? I’m being kind here and not even considering the costs of environmental, health and other impacts.
Sorry if I’m being too ‘hard-ball’ in asking for some straight-forward facts and figures.
That is very, very weak Philip. If you cannot understand the simple logic behind the idea that domestic gas’s dramatically shorter and less complicated supply chain will translate to lower transportation and fugitive emissions, then I must give up on you! I really thought that your comprehension skills were more refined.
Perhaps this will help you. Look at figure 8 for a comparison of ghg emissions from production and LNG. There are MORE emissions from LNG than in the production process. This doesn’t even account for the greater amount of energy used in the conversion or transportation of gas. You’re fighting a losing battle and you know it.
The ramping up period (as you term it) or exploration phase, as it is more commonly known, is always more high risk. But the densities in the UK are certainly below a number of locations where fracking has been successful elsewhere. So, I’m not sure why that would be problematic. As far as large companies avoiding these operations during exploration, that is certainly not the case. Centrica is not a small company. Neither is Total. But as a rule, the large integrateds don’t get involved in a meaningful way until actual development begins and the scope and economics are better defined.
The average Marcellus well has an eur of 5 bcfe (though the number is trending higher because of lateral elongation). If Cuadrilla runs 60 wells per pad, that would generate approx 300 bcf or 1/10th of the UK’s annual consumption. 10 well pads generate eur equal to the UK’s annual gas consumption.
Of course the UK will use N Sea gas for at least a decade, and the country would be smart to conserve its onshore gas supplies for strategic reasons- at least to a certain degree. I doubt you would ever see 100% self sufficiency unless it were in the best interest for some reason.
Here’s the analyst from Edison talking about the opportunity in UK shale: “Most of the active players are looking at shale gas,” said Sanjeev Bahl, oil and gas analyst at Edison Investment Research. “The current domestic price for gas is 40 pence per therm, which translates to about $6 or $7 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). That is more than double the $2-3/Mcf in the U.S. market. That is because declines in North Sea gas mean the UK now has to import gas.”
The resource base is massive, Bahl stated. “The most recent survey puts P-50 gas in place at 1,329 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). Even at typical recovery of 5 to 13 percent, that is still around the 100 Tcf mark. At the moment these first few companies are the pioneers. They are learning how to drill, frac, and complete. How much that costs. What per-well returns are. They are establishing type curves, initial production rates, and ultimately if gas can flow at a profitable rate. There are just a few wells at the moment, but to reach 100 Tcf there would have to be hundreds or thousands of wells. We won’t see that large scale for several years yet.”
Enjoy!
Here’s the link I neglected to supply above. http://www.resourceworks.com/fugitive-emissions
” He’s a crackpot ” Noooooo speak for yourself, only, Refricktion.
Lou Allstadt, the ex vice president of Mobil Oil , one of the world’s biggest Oil and Gas companies has 31 years experience in the industry .
What do you have ???
No, Jack, we’re talking about a different crackpot now. Ingraffea. Keep up!
Refricktion
ARE YOU HAVING A SENIOR MOMENT ?????
I quote you , ” the Mobil executive has admitted that he has no professional experience with fracking. He’s a crackpot, just like you and me. ”
MY RESPONSE TO YOU WAS ……..
” He’s a crackpot ” Noooooo speak for yourself, only, Refricktion.
Lou Allstadt, the ex vice president of Mobil Oil , one of the world’s biggest Oil and Gas companies has 31 years experience in the industry .
What do you have ???
………… Please try and remember what you post refricktion.
And Refricktion ……..
Before you start going on how I may be left wing, or right wing , let me stop you in your tracks.
I do not give a Monkeys whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump became president. I fully respect the choice of the American electorate, either way.
What matters to me, is that BOTH had committed to a continued special relationship with the UK.
I look at the American people as good friends and I am proud of our close connection with them .
Interesting maths Refricktion. You’ve based an incredibly optimistic ‘estimated ultimate recovery’ (EUR) figure from one of the highest output regions and then misapplied it. The best eur figure I can find for the widest survey (an average of 5000 Marcellus wells) – less than a year old – was a 3.9 bcf (per well) average. OK that’s roughly 4 compared with your 5. But the EUR represents the total output from the lifetime of the well not the output per year as you’ve assumed for your further calculation. If it was per year you would have to be replacing all of those wells every year (because you have taken all of the ultimately recoverable gas in the 1st year)!
Bear in mind too that no exploration in Europe has come up with shale formations that get anywhere near the ideal conditions (for gas recovery) that you get in North America. Same applies to much of the rest of the world. China has been trying for over 10 years and despite a high estimate given (for it’s potential) it now looks like it’s going to abandon hope of it getting anywhere. Even the Bakken shales of Nth America are going into decline after a few years. Why raise the UK’s hopes so much with aggro and so many risks and legacy issues, and for such short term returns not to mention the greenhouse gas and other environmental issues? Or is it just about setting up an investment honey trap, government backed, for lots of gullible investors? https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurberman/2017/03/01/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-bakken-shale-play/#7891520c1487
Philip, this is from a 3,800 well study in the Marcellus: “For 3,846 horizontal wells with enough history to forecast a decline profile, the estimated ultimate recovery averages 4.7 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe) per well”
I chose the Marcellus because it and the Utica are the newer plays, so the extraction technology applied in these areas is more up to date. I don’t think we will get a lot of utility out of looking at eurs in the Haynesville from 20 years ago.
One should note that these EURs are constantly growing. Cabot o&g is claiming average EURs in the Marcellus of 27 bcf as they extend laterals. http://marcellusdrilling.com/2016/03/go-big-or-go-home-cabot-og-wells-average-eur-of-27-bcf/
You are correct to note that production from the wells would not all come at once but would be gathered over years. Mine was a theoretical exercise to demonstrate the amount of energy that might be extracted from a single pad, and was in response to your question about how many thousands of wells would need to be drilled to supply the UK. I stand by the claim that a single well pad could supply enough energy to serve 1/10th of the UKs gas consumption in a year – I do not claim that this well pad would supply this energy within a year. Hopefully you understand the distinction. Hopefully you also appreciate that because IPs are generally high in shale gas extraction operations that two or three well pads could create enough gas in a given year to meet 1/10th or more of the UK’s supply needs, and continue supplying at that rate for two or three more years.
Trotting out Art Berman is pretty ridiculous of Forbes and you. The guy has been so famously wrong on US shale for well over a decade. The Bakken may well be in decline, I don’t know, but the last guy I would trust on the matter would be Art Berman!
As for whether or not the UK shale is going to be successful – that’s the whole point of this exercise. Capitalism handles this function very well. If it’s viable you can be that the money will flow. If not, there won’t be any more funding. But just understand that it will take a while to figure this out. They thought the Bakken was not viable for the first several years of development. It takes a lot of iterative work to produce good results in each play. They are all different. Again, you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about this stuff – investors can figure it out.
I’ll leave you with some words from an Edison Research analyst this week:
“Most of the active players are looking at shale gas,” said Sanjeev Bahl, oil and gas analyst at Edison Investment Research. “The current domestic price for gas is 40 pence per therm, which translates to about $6 or $7 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). That is more than double the $2-3/Mcf in the U.S. market. That is because declines in North Sea gas mean the UK now has to import gas.”
The resource base is massive, Bahl stated. “The most recent survey puts P-50 gas in place at 1,329 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). Even at typical recovery of 5 to 13 percent, that is still around the 100 Tcf mark. At the moment these first few companies are the pioneers. They are learning how to drill, frac, and complete. How much that costs. What per-well returns are. They are establishing type curves, initial production rates, and ultimately if gas can flow at a profitable rate. There are just a few wells at the moment, but to reach 100 Tcf there would have to be hundreds or thousands of wells. We won’t see that large scale for several years yet.”
A theoretical exercise – what about the reality? Is there anywhere in the US running 60 wells per pad? How many hectares do you need per pad for that? Clearly you would never get all 60 wells up and running simultaneously.
You don’t pay very close attention, do you Philip. I stated that simultaneous production from two or three pads could meet the 10% threshold, and could then continue for a few years.
Cuadrilla had stated an objective of up to 60 wells per pad. That’s why I used that number.
Enjoy your dreams …. you may be in bed with Cuadrilla but some day you’ll have to wake up and smell the coffee.
NO HARDBALL played here …….
MARTIN, I am very pleased to inform you that Fracking ” going ahead or not going ahead ” in the North East will have NOTHING to do with the CEO of INEOS , Mr Jim Ratcliffe decision as to where in the world his plans for a new type of vehicle is manufactured.
In a statement from Mr Ratcliffe, he said he would be looking for, one of government financial support to get this vehicle manufacturing project of the ground in the UK.
Mr Ratcliffe then went on to say that , quote, ” while INEOS was emotionally attached to the UK, economic rationality would win the day.”
SO THERE you have it Martin , from the boss himself…. It is NOT fracking that will decide where this vehicle is produced.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/we-want-to-crack-the-reliability-problem-british-chemicals-giant-in-bid-to-make-electric-4wd-for-australian-market-20170920-gyktm4.html
This is a very welcomed project. We should all get behind Mr Ratcliffe in the hope that he is given the support he needs, to get his idea of vehicle production in the UK up and running.
Atom bombs are historic PhilipP.
Try and catch up with the present eg. how are the specialist suppliers of sand to the US fracking industry doing?? If you research that it may give you a few clues, but I doubt it, because you really don’t want to know. You must therefore be a lifestyle improvement denier. (Good little label with the rather nasty subliminal connections, that seems to be required?) Could then coin a phrase like LIDite if we were so inclined, now that would really have further subliminal connections. And then, if we don’t like something, we put a LID on it, and of course you must have a financial interest, in preventing others having a financial benefit.
Goodness, my marketing qualifications were worth all the time and effort.
‘Goodness, my marketing qualifications were worth all the time and effort’. I would question that…..
PhilipP-look at today’s Times. Front page. I can match any of your selected pieces, but you will find the piece in the Times uncomfortable, so perhaps best to ignore.
I did answer Jack’s point, but not directly because that would have been a little insensitive. If he does one day find his way to a library (he has told me he doesn’t use them) he will find a great number of books written by ex generals or admirals explaining why they acted as they did and the defeat was another matter all together. You will find ex CEO of companies do exactly the same thing. It’s called trying to protect your legacy. It’s how they get elected to other companies boards in retirement, but it usually takes the p*** out of their previous shareholders.
The fancy footwork never ends… don’t look at the reality Martin, you might be shocked out of your comfort zone. The Times cover story you
mention – do you actually take that to reinforce your views? Hardly. It’s only the constant wake up pressure (vis-a-vis climate change etc) and calls for a way out of FF dependency that leads to that kind of article being even a remote possibility, but it is complacent and extremely irresponsible to suggest that climate targets are going to be easily met. That will only happen when serious negative emission techniques (carbon capture/removal) or geo-engineering processes that actually work (much better than anything achieved so far) are found. Meanwhile overall emissions still creep north and temperatures rise and ice melt accelerate. The affects of current CO2 will be impacting climate for over 100 years to come. Lets not add even more methane (a more potent greenhouse gas by far) to the Northern hemisphere ‘veil’ that extends almost to the equator already.
[Comment removed by moderator]
Jack
Answer D. He enjoys the challenge as we all do I guess.
hewes62
Yes, maybe ” D ”
When we enter the ” arena ” of this forum, it probably does bring out the primeval Gladiator in us all .
Most are indeed, up for ” the challenge ” and few are willing to contemplate defeat .
Although the debates might seem a little feisty at times…. It’s all in GOOD SPIRIT …
Yes
Some times I think good spirit ( Lagavulin 16 yo ) has a part to play
YES , a good choice hewes62.
For me though, I would prefer the peaty, smokey smell/taste of an Ardbeg 10yr malt.
Noooooo Martin, for the record lets all know, exactly what you are trying to say.
Also whilst I have your attention , whats your opinion on these ??
To date, you have NEVER acknowledged or given an opinion on these few links that I have repeatedly put forward for your consideration. All are warning of the dangers of Fracking.
British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
From Nobel Peace Prize winners Physicians for Social Responsibility ( PSR)
Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking
http://www.psr.org/resources/fracking-compendium.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/
OR this great bunch from PSR.
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/climate-change/methane-and-fracking/methane-and-fracking.html
Or this from Breast Cancer Action
Don’t Frack With Our Health.
https://www.bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/stop-fracking/
Or if I was wanting to inform the public about the possible difficulties obtaining Buildings Insurance, I would put this link up.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/householders-affected-by-floods-face-insurance-double-whammy-if-they-live-nearby-planned-fracking-a6804476.html%3famp
Or maybe this post if I was wanting to expose the difficulties experienced by homeowners living in planned fracking areas.
https://dondaviesindependent.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/potential-risk-to-your-home/
Another long list is waiting, if you need anymore convincing
Jackthelad, thank you for all of the propaganda posts. You are really good at referring people to incredibly biased websites that post inflammatory stories with little basis in fact.
HA HA, Doctor or should I call you Professor Refricktion ???? … I’m sure you would like to back up what you are saying in your above post and show us all exactly what makes you such an expert over these highly qualified medical experts, scientists and engineers .
Refricktion, quote, You are really good at referring people to incredibly biased websites that post inflammatory stories with little basis in fact..
Let’s see you try and discredit this list of highly professional people that are warning us of the dangers of fracking. Taken from my first link, the British Medical Journal ( BMJ )
Dr Robin Stott, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Council
Professor Sue Atkinson CBE, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Counci
Professor Hugh Montgomery, UCL
Professor Maya Rao OBE
Professor Martin McKee, LSHTM
Dr Clare Gerada, GP and former Chair of RGCP
Dr Christopher Birt, University of Liverpool and Christie Hospital, Manchester
Professor John Yudkin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UCL
Dr Sheila Adam, former Deputy Chief Medical Officer
Professor Klim McPherson, Chair of the UK Health Forum
Dr John Middleton, Vice President UKFPH
Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, KCL
Helen Gordon, Board Member, Climate and Health Council
Dr Frank Boulton, Medact and Southampton University
Dr Sarah Walpole, Academic Clinical Fellow
Professor Allyson Pollock, QMUL
Dr Julie Hotchkiss, Acting Director of Public Health at City of a York Council
Professor Jennie Popay, Lancaster University
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
(( This is just for starters Refricktion ,))
Well, PhilipP, you obviously have confidence that your model will work out a lot more accurate than the scientists referenced. They have finally admitted they were over egging, I’m not sure we will see the day when you do.
What I take the cover story to mean, is what is stated. Temperature has not increased at the level most of the scientific models predicted. (This is not the first time that has had to be admitted.) The admission of that has been slow, to put it politely.
Yes, of course it doesn’t contradict climate change is happening, but it may (I doubt it) make some pause and consider realistic, cost effective ways of dealing with it rather than the panic into blind expensive alleys which many politicians have gone down to accumulate short term votes. Maybe carbon removal, as both Oxford and Cambridge recommend-from oil and gas! In which case, we had better get fracking.
I’ll study the Times piece tomorrow. I only heard about it from my right wing friend. I suspect ‘my model’ as you call it is actually closer to the reality because it is the dominant scientific consensus. I can almost guess who those ‘referenced’ would be if they’re saying things like ‘Temperature has not increased at the level most of the scientific models predicted’. There’s a bunch of tame scientists that do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry and they even have their own methods for passing ‘peer reviewed’ papers. I expect they do very well out of it too.
Temperature increases and ice melting have actually been surpassing IPCC predictions in recent years which tend to be on the conservative side of the projected ranges.
‘Maybe carbon removal, as both Oxford and Cambridge recommend-from oil and gas!’ recommending is one thing, getting it to work is another.
Sherwulfe – decarbonsing methane gas is already done. Do you know which is the main industrial source of hydrogen , and by which process hydrogen is made?
Last time I looked Dr Nick the ‘experiment’ of carbon capture and storage had failed spectacularly.
There are some ‘projects’ globally but nothing able to scale up as too expensive; to date the UK government will not invest further in this ‘technology’.
Better not to produce the gas in the first place 🙂
Well if you wish to claim that David Cameron & George Osborne are the judge & jury regarded UK government policy on CCS, or global policy on CCS, then you can have your cake and eat it. You might as well bake off then!!!
Please tell me what has failed? https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project
I have been reading through the posts on this thread. Some good points are made. I suspect the ocean heat sink is part of the issue regarding slower average global warming than the early models predicted (those models are about 10 years old). On a regional scale though – and particularly pertinant to the N. Hemisphere, is the warming of the Arctic, which has been much more rapid than predicted. I would avoid the press as a primary source of information and comment. Especially anything uttered by James Delingpole!.
Primary sources about the new study can be found at;
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-09-18-new-hopes-limiting-warming-15%C2%B0c
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html
“Especially anything uttered by James Delingpole!. ”
Dr Riley – may I just say how nice it is to be able to agree with you for once 😉
Here is a link from the Science Media Centre (funded by the UK Research Councils) regarding the recent “hiatus” in the rate of average global warming, that is used in the new projections . The briefing was written in July 2013.
Click to access SMC-Briefing-Notes-Recent-Slowdown-in-Global-Temperature-Rise.pdf
There is some disagreement amongst climate scientists about whether the “hiatus” actually existed see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/there-was-no-pause/
In recent years global warming has accelerated again. We could of course find out in the future that average global warming accelerates faster than predicted. The processes are non-linear. The forecasts (projections) are simply model output scenarios and may or may not be actually what happens! What we can say though is the planet will warm additionally due to human activity compared to how the planet would behave due to natural variability alone. This is just basic physics. The debate is how fast and to what temperature will the Earth’s surface temperature rise to, and how can we limit the rise to within 1.5C
Yes, as anticipated the overblown reporting of science that related to the flatter period of warming before 2014 (aka the warming hiatus) was the inevitable outcome of a paper that took a long time to come through the writing, publishing and peer review stages. While the Murdoch papers, the daily Mail and misc. deniers gleefully leap on this sort of report and misconstrue it as representing present tense it’s worth reading the actual report, which is very different in tone, and also recognising, as Nick Riley says, the warming curve has shown acceleration since. It not only back on track it has surpassed the expected curve. The anomaly pointed to by the hiatus period are better understood now and the science of that report has been superceded
According to…. NASA
2017 is so far the SECOND HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD thanks to global warming.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming
A reliable perspective on the recent press hype: