Thursday
Jan202011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Shale bonanza
Matt Ridley looks at the shale gas revolution, which he says changes everything. Well, perhaps. But then again perhaps not everything. The impression you get from Andrew Orlowski's article on the same subject is that Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change are entirely unmoved by the bonanza taking place around the world and indeed on our own back door here in the UK.
No doubt some wag will soon start to refer to the denizens of DECC as "shale gas deniers". It's just as well we are above that sort of thing here.
Reader Comments (72)
Everybody gassing cracks me up.
=============
And if you find more gas suitable for heating and for electricity generation, that means that coal miners have even more incentive to invest in Fischer-Tropsch chemistry for making transport fuels.
Hmm..as someone that has worked within the oil industry for getting on 30 years (where is my cheque!) I would think that if the present P.M.'s relatives have it under their property, you will very soon see drilling rigs and production very close behind!
I blame my father for the cynical gene in me!
When I first saw your headline, I was thinking shale would be the new proxy data for climate models. Shale gas. Weird how the mother earth keeps on giving and giving us fossil fuels.
Surely the ConDems will have their finger on the pulse - won't they?????
Oh shale gas is just so inconvenient for certain people isn't it?
A short list would include:
1. Politicians who have over-committed to untenable, hyper-expensive, subsidy-dependent renewables
2. Everybody who has set up to get rich from same
3. Climate activists
4. Peak energy doomers (it's always about more than just peak oil with this lot)
So many vested interests all upset at once...
No surprise that everyone from the government to the greens to the PE doomers has already started p*****g all over the very idea of shale gas.
This will run and run.
Sorry chaps, but for a group of people so concerned about the communication of uncertainty, you seem a bit hypocritical regarding the Matt Ridley piece.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6785
hmmm....actually I think this might kill off a sector of funding towards CAGW. If you are cynical enough to believe that 'the west' believes climate taxation on goods is a way to impede the rise of imports from China/India (ie they have cheap fossil fuels, we no longer do...therefore 'dirty' goods get taxed, 'clean' goods don't) then this levelling out of the energy supply might make govs less keen to waste the PR money on 'renewables'.
Maybe.
Or they are indeed just stupid and not so smart as I may wish them to be perhaps, heh.
Hi Frosty
Wondered how long it would take.
This is priceless.
From the Orlowski piece in El Reg:
The shale gas boom has had real impact in North America (look at gas and electricity wholesale prices since 2008), and I am looking at projects seeking to spread that impact beyond that continent. Yet attempts to interest my MP and DECC in the UK have been met with complete silence - despite the way this will reduce the impact of renewables costs on energy prices - good economically and socially - and could allow rural areas like my own to get gas supplies as an alternative to costly and carbon inefficient oil heating. It is odd that politicians, civil servants and businessmen in the other countres where I work are engaged with this new dynamic in energy markets, while here the political bureaucratic and academic classses are locked in their own little world created by blinkered lobbyists and activists.
I’d forgotten how repellent Gummer actually is. Here are a few snippets from his wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer,_Baron_Deben
jheath, master of understatement, observes:
I have to salute his iron self-control.
This must be a real nuisance for the UK government - committed as they are to carpeting the country with subsidised wind farms (one's just been refused planning permission near Huntingdon - a small victory..!)
Reminds me of that tiny but classic quotation from Harold Macmillan, when, as Prime Minister, he was asked by a reporter what had led to the downfall of his government:
'Events, dear boy, events..'
By no means everyone thinks shale gas sceptic Arthur Berman is even vaguely right:
http://info.drillinginfo.com/wireline/2009/09/how-arthur-berman-could-be-very-wrong/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asEUlpJcuZB4
Thanks BBD, but my self control is helped by other countries paying for my advice, while politicians and bureaucrats in the UK do not listen even when the advice is offered for free. Once upon a time one minister at least used my advice to resist the political lobbyists, but now the lobbyists are just paid off with needless policy concessions.
The present UK energy policy was established in 2007 when everyone (myself included) expected that gas would be costly, in short supply and available only from unstable politically risky suppliers. Clearly this is no longer true.
When the facts change most intelligent people revisit their policies - but apparently not DECC under Huhne. If the coalition is not careful Huhne will single handedly destroy the UK economy and with it any hope that the Tories may have of a second term.
Thank you BBD for that brief rundown and link on the former J S Gummer which had me in stitches -- anything to perk up a snowy Thursday afternoon.
I met him briefly in 1961 when we were both delegates to the annual Conservative Student Conference (in the days when it was the Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations, an acronym that was only to survive a few years after that for obvious reasons!)
At my most tactful I shall say that I have had no reason to revise my opinion of him in the last 50 years!
(Totally off topic, the Tory Bigwig for the Conference was one Edward Heath, agreed by an overwhelming majority of the delegates to be the finest cure for insomnia they'd come across!)
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
Wondering when the watermellons would start the demonisation of shale gas, I see this film has just landed on our shores.
Sam the Skeptic
It's funny how your meeting with JSG (before I was even born) seems to remain horribly vivid in your memory ;-)
Also amusing to note that you have observed no improvement over the intervening decades...
Thank you for sharing the anecdote.
SSAT
Yes. Get the propaganda in hard and fast. The buggers are learning well, aren't they?
It's amazing to me how quickly shale gas has gone from something I had never heard of a few months ago to a major game-changer (except in DECC and HMG).
I live in a state in the US where this type of drilling is just getting underway. The Marcellus Shale, according to the energy companies, promises everyone who lives here untold riches, wealth and prosperity. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. We've had several explosions since last summer, our water is becoming contaminated from the fracking process (developed by Halliburton, so draw your own conclusions), and there are very few regulations to keep these companies in check. And our new governor, sworn in yesterday, says he'll let them have carte blanche to do what they want. No severance tax (PA is the only state without one), no regulations, no accountability. It's a recipe for disaster. Like that's not bad enough, property owners are signing away their rights in agreements without consulting attorneys--and getting ripped off in the bargain. The governor of New York has ordered a moratorium on drilling, and here in PA many local communities are banning it outright.
They are promising jobs, but the only people getting the jobs are out-of-towners from Texas. Fat lot of good that does us.
I'm no bleeding heart treehugger, but these companies must be subject to intense regulation and taxes. Pennsylvania is apparently the biggest source of natural gas in the Shale; it's not like these companies are going to take their ball and go home if the states don't comply. To do otherwise will be an economic and environmental disaster of the first magnitude. The rivers and landscape are finally clearing after the demise of the steel industry, and without tight regulations, we'll be right back in that boat again.
@ Kay,
"I'm no bleeding heart treehugger, but these companies must be subject to intense regulation and taxes."
I'm no petrolhead but these conclusions must be subject to intense scrutiny and evidence.
@ simpleseekeraftertruth:
"I'm no petrolhead but these conclusions must be subject to intense scrutiny and evidence."
And I hope they are. I'd love for this area to benefit from this, if it can be done safely. But knowing how the energy companies operate here, I'm not holding my breath. On the other hand, if they want to come in here and destroy virgin forest, state parks, and build on school property, they can bloody well pay for it. Why shouldn't we get something out of the deal?
@ Kay,
Thank you for that. IMHO you have contributed more to this thread than I could ever have done.
Philip Bratby
The speed with which shale gas led to North American gas prices de-linking from oil took markets by sur[rise in 2009, and it was some time before information finally came out. If reserve levels put out by the industry in North America are anywhere near correct, then the US will become an exporter soon. Enviromental issues relate to water (in and then cleaned up before going out) plus land restoration - a superficial check suggests that this is manageable. Much less water per well than the average golf course. Not surprisingly some big gas producers are sceptical re the environmental impact - such as Gazprom. Now why would that be given the rapid rise of new energy players in the US?
@ simpleseekeroftruth:
"Thank you for that. IMHO you have contributed more to this thread than I could ever have done."
Aw, thanks. That's nice of you to say. I just don't trust these companies any further than I could throw them.
And if you get a chance, please watch Gasland. It's a homemade documentary and probably slightly embellished, but it will shock you.
Kay reminds us that corporations are amoral and self-interested by necessity (and legal obligation). He or she further reminds us that the correct role of government is to prevent corporations from doing harm while allowing them to function efficiently enough to be of benefit to the rest of us.
He or she does not really establish an argument for or against the extraction of shale gas. Just that it must be tightly regulated.
No one would disagree with that.
But nor would I go any further with Kay, especially not now (s)he is endorsing Gasland.
@Kay
Putting the risks posed by shale gas extraction into context is critical. Something I've been trying to do myself. I'm prepared to stand corrected but from what I can gather, these are a few instances from thousands of wells for a 60+ year old technology. From what I read elsewhere, Haliburton claim to have drilled over a million shale gas wells worldwide. I could be wrong, it's just what I've read.
From what I read here: http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/fracking/
from the horse's mouth, so to speak - someone with 30 years experience working with black shale gas in upstate New York, characterises the risks as small. Pointing out that it is only the accidents that make the news, and the contamination in Dimock came from improper well casing in a shallow gas layer, not from fracking in the Marcellus Shale.
Without trying to generalise too much, risks can be minimised with proper engineering solutions.
@But nor would I go any further with Kay, especially not now (s)he is endorsing Gasland.
I'm not endorsing Gasland. I said that it's probably embellished and exaggerated, but there is some grain of truth to it. But if you want to let these guys take over in the UK, go right ahead. It's your country.
Ok, this is supposed to be a site where we go and check the numbers, rather than just taking folks word for things.
So I suggest that (like me) you first read the Art Berman article where he explains why the shale deposits are going to be disappointing, and then, if not convinced, go to the Texas Railroad Commission site and check out well production records for yourselves. When I did I found he was right. (i.e. 3 year life for the wells that I looked at).
Also try this article
http://nohotair.typepad.co.uk/no_hot_air/can-shale-gas-transform-uk-energy-policy.html
@ BBD:
"He or she does not really establish an argument for or against the extraction of shale gas. Just that it must be tightly regulated."
For a whole lot of reasons, both environmental and economic. Look, you don't have to believe me. You're more than welcome to come and visit and see for yourself. If you live in the US, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you don't, well, don't delude yourself that these companies are going to do the right thing. They're in it to make a buck, and they don't care if they run roughshod over environmental concerns or economic impact to do it. If you don't regulate them, they will not care about worker safety, citizen safety, property rights, environmental concerns like clean water...EPA classifies CO2 as a pollutant based on the Clean Air Act, yet contaminated water isn't covered under the Clean Water Act? Of course, that's dependent on enforcement at the state level, which isn't going to happen.
And if you're going to let it happen, it's the height of fiscal stupidity to not make them pay for it. They can be in it to make money--that's what companies do. But the state government should do the same and tax them nicely, especially since states are really suffering with the recession and unable to meet their budgets.
@Wormthatturned:
"Putting the risks posed by shale gas extraction into context is critical. Something I've been trying to do myself. I'm prepared to stand corrected but from what I can gather, these are a few instances from thousands of wells for a 60+ year old technology.
If those wells are 60 years old, why aren't they replacing them? And have you ever heard of fracking? If it's so safe, why is the EPA allowing Halliburton nondisclosure on just what is in their fracking fluid?
Halliburton will say whatever it can to make itself look good.
@F rom what I read here: http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/fracking/
from the horse's mouth, so to speak - someone with 30 years experience working with black shale gas in upstate New York, characterises the risks as small."
Yes, no conflict of interest there. I don't believe you guys. You jump all over the climate scientists for conflict of interest but don't apply the same standard here.
@Without trying to generalise too much, risks can be minimised with proper engineering solutions."
And who's going to monitor that? They've been given a blank check to do whatever they want--do you REALLY think they're going to do the right thing? This is the United States, not some fantasy Utopia. They're going to do whatever they can to make money, period. They answer to their shareholders, not the taxpayers or citizens. Without regulations, there is no incentive for them to do the right thing.
@ Heading Out,
I did read that but it left me wondering what the Money was doing. It looks as though Money likes the stuff.
Kay,
I doubt if any water is being contaminated by anything other than pure enviro-extremist bs.
And frankly making the ominous connection that Halliburton is involved, so it must be wicked, is annoying in its ignorance.
Re GasLand:
What little I know about the director of this film, Josh Fox, makes me intensely suspicious. I detect the usual unhealthy combination of self-interest (career opportunism) and environmental advocacy.
This is not to say that there are no problems with shale gas. Not at all. Simply that the film has the smell of propaganda hanging over it and I do not trust environmental propaganda.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/09/icymi-gasland-debunked-again-in-okla-paper/
This could be a good development particularly for us the consumers. Although I do remember watching something on the news recently about tap water becoming flammable due to contamination from natural gas drilling. Here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwogQWLEqW8&p=CFF0C2E4CED27023
But given the alternatives this needs to be looked at and I am sure the problems seen in the USA can be overcome.
What makes me so concerned about this is that the propagandising has started in real earnest before the exploratory drilling has even seriously begun.
And our political masters (and their advisors in places like the Tyndall Centre) are holding their noses and looking the other way.
I agree with Kay entirely (and said so above very clearly) that unregulated corporations are a menace. But here we have two slightly distinct arguments:
1. Shale gas is just bad, end of story
2. Closely monitored and tightly regulated extraction could be of enormous benefit to us all
But the fixes seem to be going in already, don't they?
Heading out,
Sorry, that link is page 2 of the article. Page one is here.
@ Heading out
I posted these links earlier in the thread. Not everyone is as impressed with Berman as the Peak Oil doomers seem to be:
http://info.drillinginfo.com/wireline/2009/09/how-arthur-berman-could-be-very-wrong/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asEUlpJcuZB4
Earlier I posted a couple of links to critiques of GasLand. Needless to say this is the proponents' take on shale gas - this is obvious from looking at the site.
It is also irrelevant.
Consider instead the extremely detailed exposure of the mistakes, misrepresentations and occasional falsehoods in the film. It still sounds like an opportunist (Josh Fox) spotting a nice gap in the advocacy market and exploiting it for all it's worth.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/09/icymi-gasland-debunked-again-in-okla-paper/
His Grace:
Forgive me for taking this paragraph seriously, just for a moment.
This is excellent humour to me - and very English (which reinforces the first point!) The use of the term 'denier' is by now such a cliche that this kind of thing is thoroughly deserved.
However I take a quite different view of Trenberth's use of denier in his talk to the AMS next week. Because of the context and the roots of the term in a comparison with holocaust denial.
There's nothing wrong with the terms deny, denier or denial, as long as it's without that terrible allusion. But once that is there - and is never apologised for - we have an ongoing problem.
Edward Skidelsky on ‘The tyranny of denial’:
From Prospect Magazine:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/01/words-that-think-for-us-3/
Fabulous reference, thanks BBD. Even before I read the whole thing I want to respond to this:
That hits a lot of nails on the head but still leaves me dissatisfied. Let me try and explain.
Holocaust denial is the de facto standard new use of the term (I'll take the author's word for the fact it began in the 90s). It refers to people - and unfortunately there are many - who consider the story of the Holocaust a hoax or a grave exaggeration, who think only thousands of Jews were killed, who believe, for example, that the concentrations of the poison Zyklon-B found at the Auschwitz gas chambers afterwards weren't enough to kill human beings at all. (It was primarily an insecticide before used in the death camps and to kill insects you need a greater concentration that to kill human beings, that I gather is the answer to that one.)
This is a horrendous position to take. It flies in the face of masses of documentary and testimonial evidence. It shows a terrible lack of feeling for survivors and for the families of those who died in absolutely horrific circumstances. It is utterly repugnant, rightly considered a taboo in much polite company in the West.
But, once established, the term can also be misused - of course - and applied to those who have honest questions about the chronology and the numbers of that terrible time. But if anything, for those that dare to ask the right questions, the numbers are growing - see for example the great Patrick Desbois and his work in the Ukraine http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-holy-mission-to-reveal-the-truth-about-nazi-death-squads-1690595.html
And, with all that real, horrific content to draw on for power, that is what you get compared with if you question either the science or the policy of the global warming dogma.
I accept menwhile that denial has become a trope applied to lots of things. But this application first to the holocaust, where the people concerned are in grave error and moral peril, then to AGW is the primary move and remains one of the great outrages in the use of English in my lifetime.
It's worth recalling what the misuse of the German language in 20s and 30s did leading to the very atrocities one is concerned with in Holocaust denial.
It's a bad, bad thing. Thanks again for the reference.
@ Kevin
Weird how the mother earth keeps on giving and giving us fossil fuels.
You're not the first to notice that.
There are broadly three reasons why dependence on fossil fuels is argued to be a bad idea.
The first is that they may cause CAGW.
The second is that they are usually found in horrible backward kleptocracies - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Scotland - on whom you'd rather not rely for your supply.
The third is that there's a finite supply, because they originate from fossil biomatter.
I needn't comment on the first. Re the second, well, not all horrible kleptocracies stay that way indefinitely.
Re the third, the finite supply, well, maybe; but also, maybe not. In the 1950s Russian petrogeologists couldn't figure out why oil and gas were often found at the wrong depth, i.e. not where the fossil biomass account of fossil fuel origin would predict The Russian hypothesis was that hydrocarbons exude from the earth's mantle, meaning there is probably an infinite supply, albeit it very great depths. Tectonic plate theory then appeared to provide a better answer - the deposits slide under and around layers of rock. However, oil and gas continue to be found in places at depths where they shouldn't be. BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion happened when a pocket of gas that should not have been there ignited. Interesting...
It is at least conceivable that all 3 grounds for getting off fossil fuel are in fact without merit.
We live in the Age of the Ostensible Reason, as John Wyndham put it.
Richard Drake
I couldn't agree more.
J4R
hahaha...
Mother [earth] knows best.
Just on BBC world news, "world gas reserves now estimated at 150 years" just after announcement by WMO that 2010 was "one of the 3 warmest years" & "last decade warmest on record".
Just reported - not spun or commented. All very matter-of-fact.
Is shale (unconventional) gas a game changer as it allows face-saving for those who hitched their wagons to CAGW?