Bishop Hill Lean over the top
Sep 22, 2012 Energy: gas Geoffrey Lean's latest article has an air of panic about it as it becomes increasingly clear that his battle to prevent the shale gas revolution is being lost. Accusing the Conservatives of insanity, he goes on to launch a barrage of disinformation on the new energy source:
But what about shale gas, which has seen prices plummet in the US? I was one of the first British journalists, back in January 2010, to report on its “game-changing” potential, but I must admit it seems to have been overhyped. The US cost crash arose from a glut of wells coming on stream as the economy flatlined: prices are now increasing and are expected to double within three years.
Gluts of energy are, indisputably, good for consumers. And that prices are rising in the US is, frankly, not an issue. If they double, the price might hit the dizzy heights of five or six dollars per thousand cubic feet, levels at which frackers can get an economic return. This is still half the price in the UK.
Even then, it is widely agreed, shale gas will be more expensive to exploit in Europe, and its contribution will be limited.
This has indeed been argued, although there is much less to the argument than meets the eye. The main barriers to shale exploitation are governmental in nature and can be dealt with by a sufficiently determined administration. Arguments that there are insufficient drilling rigs in the UK - an oft-put reason for the alleged limited impact of shale - are almost preposterously short-sighted when one realises that these rigs are built to be tranportable and can be put on the back of a lorry.
While the Conservatives seem to be moving in the right direction on shale, they are very much dragging their feet. UKIP, however, are racing ahead, issuing a new energy policy that seems like something from an older, better era:
We believe that the market should play a key role in the selection of technologies in this (and other) industries — although we recognise that given the very long investment horizons of major infrastructure development, there may be a case for government guarantees. In this context we criticise the EU for creating serious market distortion by favouring some lowcarbon technologies (wind, solar) over others (e.g. nuclear). There are, however, some clear priorities: gas, nuclear, and coal.
While the Conservatives are trying to replace the free market in energy generation with something resembling the CEGB of the 1970s, UKIP seem quite happy to endorse economic liberalism.
Reader Comments (90)
michael hart
Yes it requires a small electrical charge however as far as I am concerned there is no need for either CCS or the MIT filter since CO2 is not a problem. I am simply demonstrating that CCS is not the only solution to power plant CO2 emissions and that therefore Coal fired power Stations need not be closed and neither do Gas fired plants.
Question for toad:
Could you give reference/details for Lean in Shell's pocket? And Barclay bros - Shell links?
I have looked, but it's noisy out there.
TIA
Geoffrey Lean 'has been voted "most impressive environmental journalist in Britain" seven times in an annual poll among his colleagues.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/08/geoffrrey-lean-independent-sunday
Doesn't say much for the rest then.
Jolly Farmer
It's a long tortuous trail. You will have to start with this video of a highly embarrassed Lean 'running' the 'Age of Energy' series in the Daily Telegraph, and then follow all the other links via Oliver Letwin, the man who advises Cameron.
Video here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/earth/the-age-of-energy/9119627/Green-economy-debate.html
SHELL were quite unconcerned with what is cost them to have the 'Age of Energy' series inserted in the Telegraph.
Barclay Bros ? Sorry can't help, but one needs to ask how many periodicals with a 'warmist' bias contain VERY expensive adverts for SHELL or the CARBON TRUST.If they pay over the odds who is to know or be in a position to query it.
The advertorial series 'Age of Energy' did give the game away with Letwin posing alongside David Hone of SHELL.
You should also read the 300 'David Hone-Shell' blogs, where Hone boasts of Chairing meetings at the House of Commons and ask yourself how an Aussie Carbon Emissions Trader can get away with this.
Geoffrey's 'charmed life' at the Telegraph where he's totally execrated by the readership and an obvious embarrassment to the paper, has to be taken into account.
jolly farmer
http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2012/09/link/
Not that it it involves Geoffrey but you might find this recent blog from David Hone disturbing.
He refers to a 'linkage framework that could deliver the global (carbon) market that we (Shell) need'.
'It is great to see one of my linkage lines filled in'.
This arrogant Aussie Emissions Trader makes absolutely no secret of his ultimate aim.
Just look at the chart with his various 'links'.
Now that China appear to have 'come on board' another link has been completed.
Bear in mind this 'market' is potentially three times the size of the oil market.
I still don't see how you can have a trillion dollar market in something that doesn't exist but Jo Nova has explained it.
(She is currently 'unavailable' again)
Question for Dellingpole
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/09/18/judge-in-peru-issues-warrant-for-carbon-cowboy-david-nilssons-arrest/
James when you were out in Austrralia ever hear of a Guy called David Nillsons also known as the Carbon Cowboy?
Carbon and Cowboys maybe see where this is going.
This morning i was watching Click on BBC NEWS 24 with Spencer Kelly and the lovely Lara Lewington.
So they got a story about they have just stuck up a few Phone Masts in the Amazon Rainforests.
So the local Tribes people have now got Mobile Phone coverage and Internet Access.OK.
The idea is that they can also trade Carbon Credits on their Iphones for not cutting down trees.
Well this got me furious so i went looking on Google and i found it.Conman Andrew Nillson has brought all the Rights to any future Carbon Credits from all the Tribes in Peru for the next 25 or 200 years.He obviously payed them Peanuts and hes going to make Millions from it.
se pencher en arrière
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/09/21/former-pq-leader-condemns-quebecs-move-towards-shale-gas-ban/
Jamspid -
just came here to post the Click video. could not believe my ears. funny thing is, BBC has a lengthy CAGW Shell Oil ad before the segment starts:
21 Sept: BBC: Click: The mobile internet arrives in the Amazon Rainforest
(approx 6mins35secs in) mentions how google has given smart phone apps to some tribes to report illegal logging AND TO TRADE CARBON OFFSETS DIRECTLY WITH THE GLOBAL MARKET.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9753711.stm
25 June: Mashable: Zoe Fox: How Google Earth Is Preserving, Sharing Indigenous Culture
When corporations around the world choose to purchase carbon stock from the Surui people, they can easily turn to the cultural map in Google Earth, to understand the culture where they are investing their money.
“It’s not just about absolute Greenhouse gas reduction, there’s a social impact to buying Surui carbon,” Moore says. “But it’s not just for carbon buyers, interested students and the worlds can learn about this people.”
Since hearing about the Surui tribe’s project, indigenous tribes around the world have reached out to Google Earth Outreach for help creating similar projects. Moore says a number of other tribes in the Amazon, as well as the Māori people of New Zealand, First Nations of Canada and American Indian tribes have expressed interest in making their own cultural maps...
http://mashable.com/2012/06/25/google-earth-surui-cultural-map/
google is another carbon cowboy, with their algorithms set to CAGW advocacy.
love this lot too:
GreenEarthAfrica: Who we are
(Green Earth Africa is a global leader in environmental offsets trading. It specialises in carbon credits, wild life credits and water credits)
Nick Havercroft
Chairman and Founder
He then purchased his own farm and quickly become one of the largest agriculture concerns in Zimbabwe through the acquisition of other farms and companies. He also pioneered the farm to manufacture in the tobacco business in Zimbabwe through his acquisition and development of the Savanna Tobacco Company and also pioneered the contract farming system now widely used in Zimbabwe...
http://www.greenearthafrica.com/who-we-are.html
Nov 2010: Bikyamasr: Green Earth Africa merges with ZR Energies for greener continent
ZR Energies is a Middle East based company focusing on the responsible development of natural resources with the aim of maximizing returns for all stakeholders, in particular local communities at source...
http://www.bikyamasr.com/20072/green-earth-africa-merges-with-zr-energies-for-greener-continent/
GoodEarthPower: Team
Alawi Zawawi
Group Chairman & Co-Founder of ZR Energies (International) Ltd
Mr Zawawi is also the Chairman of the Omani family conglomerate, the Zawawi Group...
Jason Rosamond
Group Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder of ZR Energies (International) Ltd
Mr Rosamond has a background in technology having been a Partner and MD of UK IT company Agilisys...
Walid Kamhawi
Financial Advisor
Mr Kamhawi was a Managing Director of Blackstone Group, working out of the New York, London, and Hong Kong offices over the course of 15 years...
General Mzheri
Senior Vice President
General Mzheri has many years military experience and his duties have included a long spell with the United Nations peacekeeping forces...
http://www.goodearthpower.com/home/about/team.html
Big Oil/Big Tobacco/CAGW - surely not.
5 July: Zee News India: Anti-tobacco activists ask UN to withdraw award to ITC
Taking strong objection to United Nations awarding the `World Business and Development Award, 2012` to ITC Limited, the largest producer of cigarettes in India, an NGO has written to the agency to withdraw the honour.
The Voluntary Health Association of India also said the award given to ITC at the Rio+20 Summit is against the spirit of World Health Organization`s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first ever global public health treaty negotiated under the UN, which India ratified in 2003...
http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/anti-tobacco-activists-ask-un-to-withdraw-award-to-itc_17749.html
16 July: DNA India: Pranay Lai: The curious case of tobacco companies and eco prizes
Late last month, on the sidelines of the Rio+20 conference, India’s largest cigarette maker, ITC (formerly Indian Tobacco Company) received the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s highest prize for improving the environment and removing poverty. In tow were the UNDP’s administrator and former New Zealand prime minister, Helen Clark, and the top executive of the UN Global Compact. The award is possibly the biggest travesty of justice even by the UN and the World Bank’s weak ethical standards...
Smoking kills more than one million adults prematurely in India...
One study using government data suggests that direct expenditure on tobacco by households can potentially impoverish nearly 15 million Indians annually. Another study has found that treating just four major tobacco-related diseases account for 4.7% of India’s national healthcare expenditure...
Like tobacco companies around the world, ITC supports environmental NGOs like WWF and TERI, sits on influential boards and even runs a hospital in Kolkata! ...
Why does the UN, the World Bank or even the WHO continue to partner and recognise perverse industries like tobacco companies? The answer is simply — money...
Starved of public financing, the UN agencies rely upon ‘voluntary’ contributions like donors, private philanthropies and companies. Private funds are earmarked for specific purposes, thus circumventing ethical control. In the 1970s, such donations constituted a small proportion of the UN’s budget. By 2008, it comprised more than 70%. For the WHO this is nearly 80%, as public health agenda get shaped by private interests...
What is tragic is that Helen Clark, a responsible prime minister and wife of a respected public health expert could not have given this award in New Zealand or any other developed country...
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_the-curious-case-of-tobacco-companies-and-eco-prizes_1715496
Gluts of energy are, indisputably, good for consumers.
Western nations have too many consumers. What is needed is more producers.
OR...population reductions!
I reckon we adopt the Logans Run system and terminate anyone when they get to 30!
You know it makes sense!
Mailman
As a Telegraph subscriber I am becoming increasingly disaffected by the "old cobblers" disseminated by Geoffrey Lean and for that matter by his running mate "cut and paste" Louise Gray.
The only thing to do is to keep writing to the editor to complain and if that doesn't work to cancel the subscription.
The Sunday Telegraph editor seems a lot more sensible than the Daily Telegraph one. Indeed his main editorial today (though unattributed) is pretty much cribbed from the UKIP manifesto.
dave
'keep writing to the editor', as 100's do daily'.
'Cancel your subscription'
Sorry but the loss of your subscription will make little difference in comparison with what SHELL OIL pay to keep Geoffrey there as a 'sleeper', to be activated when they have a message such as 'suppress Shale gas' to put across.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Shell have plenty of it !
Further to the comments by Dung and others about Methane Hydrates, there is a very interesting - and ironic - twist to the tale. The technology which was trialled successfully by a US/Japanese team this summer recovers the methane by displacing it from the ice lattice with another gas.
Guess which gas they use....none other than our old friend C...O...2!!
So, while producing methane they sequester CO2.
Welcome to a massive new carbon-neutral hydrocarbon resource!! (I admit the economics may take a while to come good but it must be a good case for huge subsidies?).
It will be highly entertaining to see how the ecolarmists will react.
THAT 'TOAD' IS TALKING THROUGH HIS HAT. AN OIL COMPANY WOULDN'T SEEK TO CONSTRAIN ITS OWN PRODUCTS .
Before you reach this conclusion and we move on, I would ask you to consider the following :-
The Bish opens with these words - "Lean's latest article has an air of panic about it as it becomes increasingly clear that HIS battle to prevent the shale gas revolution is being lost'.
Sorry but his BATTLE ?
Are you telling me that one very lazy old man would summon up THAT much energy unless someone was pushing him ?
Please consider also the following irrefutable facts
1. The 'Age of Energy' series was 'fronted' by Geoffrey Lean on behalf of SHELL OIL.
2. The whole thrust of the series was 'Yes, Shale Gas is a good idea but it must be 'constrained' or 'abated' by Carbon Capture and Storage.
3. Shell's UK Chairman Graham van't Hoff says this quite clearly.
4.Carbon Capture and Storage has never ever worked on a commercial scale.
5. David Hone, SHELL's Senior Climate Change Adviser who is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association has published no less than 300 blogs telling us that CCS is imperative.
6. This same David Hone can be seen at the centre of the 'Age of Energy' series and indeed is photographed with Oliver Letwin the man who 'advises' David Cameron on such matters.
I would be delighted to hear from anyone who disagrees or feels that I have mis-read the situation.
MikeH
I think we may be a teeny bit suspicious that they will not like it hehe.
toad
Someone needs to point out that Shell are exploiting shale in China and there is no talk of CCS there?
Pat
You keep writing really good exposés and are set to join Booker I am sure ^.^
Dung
SHELL OIL as you know, is a huge company. They don't all 'sing from the same hymn sheet'.
The 'Carbon Emissions Trading' group are based here in UK.
It was started by James Smith, now Chairman of the Quango 'The Carbon Trust'.
His heir and successor is David Hone, but clearly Graham van't Hoff the current UK Chairman goes along with it. He says so in 'that' article.
SHELL CHINA and SHELL ALASKA have completely the opposite problems, opposition to planned 'exploration'.
The UK 'boys' aren't worried about this.
As James Smith told us 'OIL is filthy stuff'.
That's why it's far less trouble to trade in 'carbon' - three times the profit and you don't even have to get your hands dirty !
toad
I understand your points about Shell, you have done a good job explaining the situation. However the second largest economy in the world will be exploiting shale without using CCS, the largest economy in the world is already exploiting shale without CCS. Shell is involved in China if not in the USA, they can not with any credibility be seen to suggest holding back our economy by demanding CCS in the UK.
Dung
'SHELL...........can not with any credibility be seen to suggest holding back our economy by demanding CCS'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/earth/the-age-of-energy/9382095/designing-sustainable-city.html
Sorry but read this article by the Chairman of SHELL UK where he demands exactly that.
In his own words -
"'DEVELOPING WAYS TO CAPTURE AND STORE THE CARBON DIOXIDE THAT COMES FROM BURNING THEM (fossil fuels) IS ESSENTIAL.
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) IS CURRENTLY THE ONLY TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO MITIGATE EMISSIONS FROM LARGE SCALE FOSSIL FUEL USE"
To me, this is quite unequivocal !
toad
I hear and read your message, what I am saying is that given their activity elsewhere in the world, their words have no credibility as long as we educate decision makers in the UK about those Shell activities ^.^
Toad/Dung
I doubt very much if J Humphries esq will ask that question on the R4 Today Programme, until he does no-one in government will take notice.
Sandy
Question for Monbiot
Unethical Exploitative Cowboy Insider Carbon Trading.
The new "LIBBOR" scandal.
George what you gonna do about it.
George put your Green Cape away and do your Clark Kent instead.
Wheres theres oppotunity theres greed what/ever you,re dealing in.
3rd World ,Fags and Carbon Credit Corruption. Good hIt thanks Pat
So is Vangel a shill for the greenies, or the voice of reason in a sea of gas-hype? We need a major skeptic player to look into the situation and produce a rational analysis. If there's already an unbiased site we can go to to figure things out, could someone point it out? This reminds me of 20 years ago or so when I decided I needed to go figure out if the Global Warming wailing was true or false. I was inclined to think it was false, but was willing to be convinced either way. Unfortunately, all the sites I went to were just propaganda for the CAGW crowd. It's still the case that an intelligent layman with math training can't find a CAGWland site which makes a clear, unbiased technical argument.
You have to do your own research and your own thinking. In the case of shale gas the best thing to do is to look at the producers. If you pick pure shale players and look at the balance sheets you will see a massive increase in debt or equity dilution as new shares are issued to cover operational costs. And when you look at the cash flows you will notice that operations are not self financing. Now this is not a problem if you have a new company just beginning to develop a field and need a lot of upfront cash to pay for leases and the drilling of new wells. The trouble is that eventually the shale producers should start to show that their operations are self financing or they have to resort to asset sales or new debt or equity issues. Sadly, that is what we are seeing. The total cost per Mcf, once you take into account all costs, is around $7.50 while the sale price is around $3.00 at the wellhead and often much lower. What is even more disturbing that all of these losses have come at a time when companies were going after the low hanging fruit and producing in the core areas of the best formations. Much of the easy gas is already gone and the next areas to be developed are not as productive.
Keep in mind that accountants can easily play with the earnings statements by choosing the depreciation costs they want to show by making assumptions about EURs. One of my favourite companies to follow in this sector is Chesapeake Energy. The company was assuming average EUR’s its Marcellus leases to be more than 4 Bcf. That was not out of line because in its conference calls and presentations Range was assuming average EUR’s to be a little less than 6 Bcf. But when we look at the USGS, which I consider way too optimistic on the shale issue, the average EUR for the Marcellus formation was somewhere around 1.2 Bcf. This means that the producers are claiming much lower costs for their wells because they think that they should be depreciated over a longer period than they will produce. I am not an accountant but that is a problem for me.
Now before you go off on me and claim that in the UK costs are so high that a profit could be made let me point out that the American costs are as low as they are because the US has a massive oil drilling sector that can increase rig and crew counts at a reasonable rate and keep up with demand. Not only that but there are companies that will service wells and transport gas via existing infrastructure at a very reasonable cost. There is no way that the EU with all of its rules and little of the total infrastructure could get a well up and running at as low a cost as in the US. But the bigger problem seems to be the energy return on the energy invested. In the case of shale, the production in the non-core areas does not seem to yield a positive return. This means that we could benefit from shale if operations are limited to the best areas where it makes sense but that would mean that we will not get much in the way of the projected production to make a big difference.
None of which is to deny that domestic shale gas production which was viable at, say, $7 would probably be a very good thing for the UK. The other concern, though, is that the shale-gas hangover isn't just about prices, but also (or really, in the first place) about what production volumes are long-term commercial at what prices.
I would deny that shale gas was viable at $7.00. While one can make a lot of money from some wells in the core areas at less than $5 the average well will not make money at $7.00 once you look at the actual ultimate reserves rather that the estimated reserves that are used by the companies.
Vangel
Why dont you read all the responses to your original post, you are continuing to distort the US picture.
Mailman, Re: "I reckon we adopt the Logans Run system and terminate anyone when they get to 30! You know it makes sense!"
I beg to differ. Jenny Agutter is still living proof of that...
"We believe that the market should play a key role in the selection..."
This is called a market molopoly. How about letting the consumers play the key roll in selection of what they buy?
michael hart
I still have not got over Jenny Agutter in Logans Run.....sigh
I have complained to the editor of the the DT than Lean had got his facts wrong but only by 100%. He advised me to take it with Lean. I did but I did not even receive an acknowledgement. This shows he lacks journalistic integrity. I don't bother to read his views anymore.
I always refer to him as 'the Lean green bullshit machine'...
Spen
Geoffrey Lean is an independent entity within the Telegraph.
No-one wants him there.
He is loathed by everyone, staff & readers alike, but the Telegraph are VERY well rewarded for keeping him there.
He is allowed to carry on drivelling until his 'controller' wants an article opposing Shale Gas, at which point this automaton is activated.
His association with the Camerons goes back a long way.
He still thinks the sun shines out of Sam's derriere, but he's overplayed his hand with 'Dave'.
He thought he could tick 'Dave' off for backsliding on his 'Greenest Government Ever'.
Dave didn't take kindly to that.
Dave has said he wants to go beyond 'Huskies & Windmills', but he is being pulled one way by George and his own backbenchers and the other way by Sam (and her dad) along with Nick (and his wife) Davey and assorted troughers.
Who in all this sorry saga is making the REAL money (not just the odd £200,000 that gets declared) we would all like to know.
$176,000,000,000 goes an awful long way !
FOLLOW THE MONEY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/earth/the-age-of-energy/8741948/Graham-vant-Hoff.html
Readers may be interested in this video made 12 months ago by Graham van't Hoff, Chairman of SHELL UK for the 'Age of Energy' Series 'chaired' by Geoffrey Lean'.
van't Hoff makes frequent reference to 'How can we influence consumer behaviour'.
Then he talks about a competition for 'smarter cabbies'.
Now which Climate Change Committe Chairman was until recently chair of a company that might benefit ?
Geoffrey Lean, editor UNEP magazine
http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/2011/dec/en/contributors.asp
Sep 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM | DennisA
Hmmm ... so this is:
but:
How very typical ... They can say whatever they want, and they've declared themselves not accountable for any of it!
Interesting, also, that from this page they show a nav item "Numbers & Inventions". Perhaps it should read "Numbers we've Invented" ;-)
And in typical UN fashion, depending on which other nav item you choose, this particular nav item sometimes appears as above and sometimes as "verbatim and innovation" (but it goes to the same page)
Consistency is certainly not their forté, is it?!
Sep 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM | Spen
"This shows he lacks journalistic integrity"
The thing is, he isn't a journalist, he's an advocate and opinion writer with a mindset on the Terminator type: he absolutely will not stop on his pre-programmed course. He probably also has that insufferable 'holier-than-thou' attitude endemic amongst the uber-green fraternity.
The root cause is that BBC is inextricably linked with government special interest factions, like windies, who can only get their turbines to rotate, oddly, when the tax payer subsidy is flowing.
@lurker
Unfortunately the windies also get paid when the turbines don't rotate- heads, they win, tails they win too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088196/Wind-farms-paid-25million-NOT-produce-electricity-blustery.html