Monday
Jan172011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Government rejects deep greens
Roger Harrabin is reporting that the Tyndall Centre have called for a moratorium on shale gas extraction in the UK "until the environmental implications are fully understood" (meaning permanently, one assumes). The report was apparently commissioned by the Cooperative (which used to be called the Co-op Bank).
The Co-operative is concerned that Decc pronounced shale gas safe last week before the end of a consultation into the technology by MPs on the Commons energy and climate change select committee.
Paul Monaghan, head of the organisation's social goals, said: "There should be no fracturing of rock for shale gas until legislation can catch up.
Reader Comments (41)
Will this turn into another misguided piece of Harrabin advocacy? It seems he might have backed the wrong horse over 'that' Met Office forecast...
The Tyndall Centre with its propaganda manual is showing just how anti-science, anti-progress, and anti-human it can be. This is a TEST drilling: research and development. So, what they are really saying is that they don't want technology developed. They don't want to know about quantifiable evidence. If you don't find out any data, then the deep greens can keep on trotting out the precautionary principle because 'we just don't know'. What a self-serving bunch of idiots. Good job our forebears didn't think the same way otherwise we'd have nothing in this modern world - Tyndall employees wouldn't be able to drive to work, light their offices or use their computers, never mind feed and clothe themselves.
"Paul Monaghan, head of the organisation's social goals, said: "There should be no fracturing of rock for shale gas until legislation can catch up."
Hm.
Odd how humankind managed to survive even the first stone implements, never mind the use of fire, seeing that 'legislation' not only did not 'catch up' with their discoveries, but was actually non-existent.
I'm wondering now if all those greenie-leftie cAGWers demonstrate by their various sayings that they've actually reached an evolutionary dead end? Because they are obviously incapable of survival without having everything legislated for, so as not to lose the layers of cotton wool in which they've wrapped themselves ...
When you have long term investment funds in "sustainable" energy...
The Co-operative Investments | Ethical Investments
Another who bandies the world "ethical" like confetti...
But of course their interest is purely "ethical" no financial rewards are involved at all...
One has to credit Harrabin with pointing out a conflict of interest: "The Tyndall report was commissioned by The Co-operative, an institutional investor in oil firms."
From their site...
They are actively seeking a supply and demand imbalance... shale gas effects their forward predictions...
Presumably any exploration s under license, has been approved by and is "supervised" by the Department of Energy and Climate Change?
I imagine that any drilling for hydrocarbons can lead to contamination of aquifers if the bore is inappropriately sited. Isn't that the purpose of the licensing?
What's so different about shale gas extraction that legislation needs to catch up?
@HaroldW
So Harrabin highlighted something that it took me 5 mins to find on their corporate site...?
You have to remember even organisations themselves funds are in competition. Fund managers get their bonuses based on the performance of their funds... not others.
AM
It now appears that we now have a 4th</B> Met Office winter forecast that dates from October 2010.
1. The probability map from the Met Office's own web site that indicated the 60-80% probability of a warmer winter.
2. The Roger Harrabin claim that the Met Office had forecast a severely cold winter.
3. Paul Hudson's Met Office map that forecast a colder winter.
4. Francis Maude's written reply that the government had received a Met Office forecast that advised that temperatures during November and December were likely to be average or colder.
The "or colder" part indicates that the Met Office forecast given to government was based on probabilities - a direct reference to the original probability maps at the Met Office's own website.
Further the Met Office forecast given to Paul Hudson and the forecast given to government are not the same. The "average or colder" forecast cannot be confused with the "colder" forecast.
Finally the Roger Harrabin statement that the Met Office had forecast a severely cold winter needs urgent explaining. Both the BBC and the Met Office now stand accused of making a highly misleading statement. Was the low Met Office probablity of a colder winter spun into a forecast of an extremely cold winter by the red-faced at the Met Office and obliging BBC employees?
Isn't it funny that the Met Office, presumedly, could not publicly release its cold forecasts, in order to not violate 'the party line' of each year being warmer than the previous, and the dam managers at Wivenhoe could release its waters, in order to not violate the party line that every drop of water was precious?
I suspect there's already an undignified scrum of rent seeking UK gubmint "agencies" already lining themselves up with position papers to "regulate" this activity.
It should be all performed to a hysterical horse race commentary - DECC in the lead, and look!! Environment Agency is coming up the inside, DeFRA is making a charge...
Other folk have pointed to ENRON's involvement with PG&E in California = "Emerging Markets and Global Power Shortage".... now where have I heard that before?
This is a shambles.
Hmmm...
Extract from an article "Written by Fran Monks and published on the 1st May, 2009":-
"There is something about Paul Monaghan’s brown shirt, undone at the collar, and his tightly cropped hair, that gives him the air of an activist. It’s not the image that I expected to find in the big corner office of a corporate headquarters. I imagine that fifteen years ago, when Paul was running a campaign to boycott high street banks involved in third world debt, he would have been surprised to find himself here too. Under his leadership, the Manchester University Students Against Third World Debt convinced 32 university campuses to boycott Lloyds and Midland Banks. It was 1994 and he wanted to offer student unions an ethical alternative. The closest he could find was the Cooperative Bank. Paul explains: “I approached them and said ‘Why don’t you do a student account? Get your sh*t together and I can get you all these union accounts and personal accounts!’” Terry Thomas, the then managing director, spotted Paul’s potential and made him an offer: “You’re very good at telling people what to do. Come and work for us!”
Paul comes from a family with seven children and says that he always had “a mission to make a difference”. His political activism was inspired by his father, who was very involved in the British Leyland strikes of the 1970s. His passion for the environment was born out of a childhood playing in the wetlands that had developed on top of disused mines behind his family home in Wigan."
see http://howtomakeadifference.net/2009/05/paul-monaghan/
@Jiminy -
I'm not saying that the statement represented a great investigational triumph, but just that it was mentioned at all surprised me. Asking "cui bono?" should be a reflex action for a journalist, but often is bypassed if the point of view expressed concurs with one's prejudices.
Shale gas extraction to be added to the list of useful things which includes, DDT, nuclear fission and GM.
Any chance of a moratorium on environmentalism?
Roger Harrabin, the Co-op, the Tyndall Centre; is there no end to the list of people/organisations in the scam to make money out of environmental alarmism?
@HaroldW
Sorry I was a little brief due to pressures of work... but when has an environmentalist ever been fully open will all details, even when those details may be against their interests? TheCo-op is also an institutional investor (3% - significant for one fund) in Scottish and Southern Energy Plc... a name that keeps cropping up in our world... my only point was Harrabin did not mention that.
Frac stimulation of low perm reservoirs, such as some of the shalier facies of the Rotliegendes, where indurated by deep burial, has been routine in the UK North Sea since the late 70's. Grading virtually to shale anyway. Halliburton claims to have done over a million frac jobs to date wordwide. There are existing stringent environmental regs.
BTW Guess who I've just seen on the cover of an in-house oil co magazine? Standing grinning, in middle of the drill floor, right on the rotary table in his hi-vis jacket, safety goggles and hard hat, one hand on the drill collar hanging in the hole, with the power tongs dangling right behind his backside? Posed of course, not a single smear of mud on him.
Chris Huhne
I have some sympathy with those advising caution. A circumspect approach to new extraction techniques is always useful - those living in Cheshire and Durham who have to check mining subsidence effects on any house purchase will know that. However, circumspection is not ludditism, and calling for a moratorium on a data gathering exercise is rather childish.
I am however rather nervous that the technique has been pronounced safe by DECC, not an organisation with a great deal of credibility. If anything, that would put me off the whole thing altogether!
It's also interesting that DECC took this view "...before the end of a consultation into the technology by MPs on the Commons energy and climate change select committee". Now it's not so long ago that DECC were trumpeting the reports of another select committee into various shennanigans relevent to a certain set of emails, now they're ignoring their very own select committee.
Most odd.
You Brits seem to be between a rock and hard place.
No NUCS, no COAL and now no NATURAL GAS. Guess you guys are going to have to stand in front of all those "super efficient" wind mills and blow to keep the lights on. That or shine pedal powered flashlights on solar panels. This is starting to sound a lot like the Matrix! Bio-power is the solution.
Sorry, not really poking fun. Your America cousins are only a few years behind you. The Greenies want the lights to go off here also so they can blame power blackouts on global warming (or whatever they call it now) and then round up all the excess population and send us to the showers, for the good of mankind, of course.
If it wasn't our lives being destroyed this would all read like a Terry Pritchard book about Disc World.
Guilty until proven innocent: Again.
So predictable, so small-minded & so wearisome.
The madness caused by CO2 obsession knows no bounds.
Aren't you getting sick of it? I'm starting to wonder if I'm the one who's mad. Perhaps an eco-totalitarian utopia would be a good thing after all. Or maybe I should just stop reading blogs.
I am a Canadian geologist familiar with shale gas development. There is no problem with shale gas escaping into overlying fresh-water acquifers if there is an adequate seal, which is generally the case and easily demonstrated. The problem with shale gas is in the multiple fracture-stimulations that tight reservoirs (of any kind) require: these require huge amounts of fresh water to move the proppant (sand to hold the fractures open) into the fracture system. The dispute is with how much water can be removed from the surface environment without compromising the ecology it formerly served, or the other uses being made of it. The stories of gas in water wells may result from improper wellbore cementing of any oil and gas development, not just shale gas. But from experience out here, virtually all gas bubble complaints are due to natural coal in the water zone being used for drinking/irrigation. or bacterial contamination, including subsurface swamp gas from decomposing plant matter (some very old, as in peat beds).
A lack of technical understanding and a desire to stand outraged on a soap box to the hurrahs! of voters leads to more foolish worries than just climate change.
small pedant alert
Discworld is from Terry Pratchett. :)
@ brownedoff
His political activism was inspired by his father, who was very involved in the British Leyland strikes of the 1970s.
So the dad was a wrecker, and the boy learned nothing.
When they talk about the environmental implications being fully understood, is that like saying they want to wait until the science is settled? Because I thought the science was settled. Or isn't ever settled. Or something.
Where is Bob Ward when you need him?
"...Good job our forebears didn't think the same way otherwise we'd have nothing in this modern world --Tyndall employees wouldn't be able to drive to work, light their offices or use their computers, never mind feed and clothe themselves...." Jan 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM | ScientistForTruth
Just wait a bit.
Did the Luddite movement ever officially end in Britain?
Here's their document:
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Shale gas: a provisional assessment of climate change and environmental impacts
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/tyndall-coop_shale_gas_report_final_0.pdf
According to the beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12198606), Prof Kev Anderson of the Tyndall Centre at Man Uni says:
However why get a quote from someone who is clearly a global warming alarmist ("Kevin Anderson is the Research Director of Tyndall-Manchester's Energy and Climate Change programme and manager of the Tyndall Centre's energy pathways to global decarbonisation programme") and not an expert on geology or shale gas or water contamination issues? Except of course he'll give the required answer.
Shale gas technology has already transformed the energy supply position in the US and in the rest of the world. Because it is widely dispersed it is helping wonderfully well in reducing the power of unstable regimes with large conventional gas reserves from throttling our economy. It is also placing into ever more stark relief how ill-judged our plans for wind farm development really are.
The Tyndall Centre's attempt to throttle the shale gas industry at birth in the UK also shows us what the "climate" agenda is really about.
Marxists have offered myriad reasons unconvincing reasons why their creed produced poverty. Environmentalism resolves this problem. Unlike Marxists, and for the first since Jesus Christ himself it openly claims that poverty is desirable. The crime humanity is committing in releasing carbon and the associated risk is so great that any price including authoritarian rule, loss of freedom or euthanasia itself can be justified.
With this creed, knee jerk opposition to shale gas comes automatically.
It is hard to believe that our dear old Cooperative should be funding this, but if you read what the Tyndall Centre says on its website and what we are told of its other funding (to UEA and others) it is clearly true.
Through its takeover of the Britannia and its through its own bank, the Cooperative is acting like it was a sober adult sort of organisation. While I would do not really approve of boycotts, it does make me think it would be a good time to look at how competitive many of the other more sensible financial institutions really are.
I've not seen the whole Gasland film but I did view the trailer. It is simply propaganda. Not only that, but to suggest the claimed issues (as seen in the video) might happen in the UK, particularly at the Blackpool (Bowland Shale formation) is stretching the imagination beyond reason.
The main fright tactic is to show gas in the water supply. It certainly looks impressive. However in the UK it is extremely unlikely for two basic reasons. Firstly, well over 99% of all water comes from the mains. Whilst water some is extracted from boreholes (I don't have local knowledge of the region's supply structure, so there may be none), it always goes through many levels of treatment and quality assurance. Any problem would be picked up very quickly and remedial action taken.
Secondly, the target shale is at least 1000m down. Typical domestic boreholes for water are less than 100m and more normally less than 70m. The chances of any fracturing (by hydraulic or any other non-natural process) from the shale depth to that of the borehole is miniscule. Without a path, the fluids cannot migrate. The fracking fluids and any gas released will not be able to reach any aquifer hundreds of metres above.
Boreholes are always lined and cemented-in to prevent flow and contamination between strata. Great care is taken to avoid damage to aquifers and to circumvent flow from them. Water in the gas pipeline is no laughing matter. Indeed the industry is extremely conscious of all these issues and perfectly capable of addressing them with well-established methods.
Mr. Monaghan is also against tar sands:
"Good news
Posted: 05 Oct 2010
Average rating:
In last 24hrs we have seen a series of leaks from EU that would indicate we are winning the battle to get the EU to accept that tar sands are high CO2 emitters and need penalising. Looks like that they will agree to theory of penalities this year, but that will leave open what the exact number is until next year - we've said should be based on 25% which effectively keeps 'em out of Europe. Softly softly catchee monkey :)"
see: https://www.hive.coop/blogs/My-Blog/?userId=90&entryId=839
Pharos Jan 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Oh please.. pretty please could you tell us which magazine / month?
I saw the pic here and wondered about HUET proficiency.....
http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2010/October/news/Huhne%20defends%20deep%20sea%20drilling.htm
Shale gas represents a serious threat to... the ecototalitarians. Relatively cheap gas in potentially huge reserves that would heat homes for decades without the need to ration and oppress those who feel 21st century comfort during global warming induced record cold winters is among the healthy standard of living one can enjoy in a modern economy and a civilized country like the UK.
Disrupting energy availability in order to artificially raise the price of abundant clean gas is one of the strategy used by the greens wherever they have infiltrated power. Beware!
As Doug Proctor 05.39 says, there is generally at least one and maybe multiple thick seal formations separating the deep gas target from the surface aquifers. Surface aquifers are naturally replenished with rain water, termed meteoric water. The deep formations, usually well below mean sea level, contain ancient entrained formation water, called connate water, which is almost invariably saline. When an inland shallow well finds salt water, which is rare, or traces of seeping oil or gas, which is even rarer, it suggests that there is no seal or a local structural breach, such as a fault, is acting as a seep conduit from deeper formations. These conduits of course would normally be natural, but could be propagated artificially accidentally.
As in all things, the prospect of large compensation payouts could prompt various dubious speculative attempts at litigation. Operators know full well the environmental spotlight is on them and they would be desperate to minimise the operational risk. DECC have very detailed operational regulations and staff an experienced safety inspectorate. Even so, you can never guarantee zero risk.
Tom
As your article states, it was on the trip to the Sedco 714, for Total, featured on their Courier winter 10/11 edition (dont think its online). Its actually a very good picture, as I said, he's smiling and appears human, even.
Geologically speaking, if one is against shale gas, one would also have to be against CO2 sequestration in underground saline formations, since one would have to drill through the same strata and pressurize underground structures.
Of course, many "environmentalists" are against...
...everthing.
Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Tyndall Centre, said: “In an energy-hungry world, any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions.
He puts his finger on the problem when he says:
“In the case of shale gas there is also a significant risk its use will delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives.
Right, because it actually delivers energy at a price people can afford and the renewable subsidies would be under threat, not to mention his job.Then he does his Jim Hansen bit:
“Consequently, if we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, the only safe place for shale gas remains in the ground.”
BTW he is no longer Director at Tyndall, they have kept it in house with Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Lead Author in 3rd, 4th and upcoming 5th IPCC Assessment, LA in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and co-chairs the Global Carbon Project,
Useful site here with lots of good info and a nice lttle video about the process,
http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/carol-browner/
In use for 60 years, a million applications, water and gas strata separated by '000's of feet, less water requirement than for ethanol production.....
"with the power tongs dangling right behind [Huhne's] backside"
That sounds like a great opportunity missed... :-(
They are so opposed to coal mining in Australia that they covered many mines with water recently, in conjunction with weather forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology.
Here is an example http://www.geoffstuff.com/Dawson%20River.wmv
More on the CO-OP's Gasland propaganda here:
http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GWPC-_Gasland2.pdf
http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Gasland-Fact-Sheet-FINAL-062110.pdf
The website is also a good source for information about various topics including hydraulic fracturing:
http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/fracking/