Bishop Hill Welsh shale transcript
Nov 1, 2013 Energy: gas ;)
The Commons Welsh Affairs Committee took its first lot of evidence in its inquiry into shale gas last week, and I've now had a chance to look at the draft transcript, which can be seen here. The committee is chaired by David TC Davies, the Welsh Conservative who gained plaudits for his involvement in the Climate Change Act debate the other day, so there was at least the opportunity for some robust questioning, particularly because, alongside the expert witnesses we had Kevin Anderson to beat the green drum regardless of his lack of expertise in shale gas.
This is very interesting stuff, which desperately needs some follow up, for example over questions such as:
- how many wells might be drilled from a UK gas pad, and how much gas might come out that pad
- whether onshore wind really is at price parity with other forms of generation
- whether shale would really not produce price reductions
And this wonderful piece of sidestepping by Professor Thomas is worth printing and framing:
Q40 Mr Williams: What are the US experiences of the risk of contamination?
Professor Thomas: I am sure you have all seen the “Gasland” video. It seems likely that that is just a manifestation of the very worst practices—
Q41 Chair: Is it the case that that has been comprehensively disproved?
Professor Thomas: Yes, it has. It is just an example of the kinds of practices in which we would not engage in the UK.
Q42 Chair: And it never happened in the first place. There was already evidence of leaks of methane into the tap water in that area.
Professor Thomas: I think it has to be said that we have a solid regulatory system. If Richard’s predictions are correct—and that is a big, big if—you would have to scale up the capability to regulate, to manage and to inspect, but we are not there yet. That is part of the risk development and risk escalation phase—whatever the right phrase is.
Reader Comments (21)
Well spotted!
> Well spotted!
Where? Do the green taliban know? How did they manage to drill it with out any protests?
Prof Thomas (UNESCO Professor in the Development of a Sustainable Geoenvironment??) didn't mention Gasland II ?
I'd like to elaborate on GasLand II but I haven't watched it - replacing my computer monitor and speakers isn't in the budget for 2013.
That Prof Thomas even mentions GasLand in his evidence to a Parliamentary Committee should be a matter of enduring shame to the academic establishment - just utterly woeful.
edit: Appointed: Fellow of the Royal Society, 2012 ? - I suppose that goes some way to explaining his witterings.
Abraham Lincoln: 'You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.'
Looks like even the dumb MPs are waking up to how these Marxist eejits have deceived them.
Yesterday even the BBC reported 'Low health risk' from fracking, says UK agency.
Their story was rather spoilt by the use of a depressingly dark photograph, implying doom-laden clouds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24761980
One would expect a report of 'good' news to be illustrated by a bright, cheerful sunny image.
tomo
Read! Read!
(well Hear! Hear! didn't seem appropriate somehow)
Er... He tried to raise Gasland, and then agreed that it was a completely disproven propaganda piece.
Isn't there any ability for these committees to hold an attendee in contempt for perjury? This seems to be a straightforward case of trying to tell a lie to a parliamentary committee, which is usually considered rather naughty.
What is frightening is that there are probably committees and enquiries that will blindly accept Gasland as the truth.
As an aside - any windfarm applications being stopped short by the Arrdhaus Convention yet..? And if not, why not..?
@David Jones
just fully read the transcript - not sure I can bring myself to actually watch the video....
Loaded witnesses for certain - the snitty twerp Gareth Clubb from FoE Cymru bleating about Welsh language facility just takes the bisgedi .
Little actual evidence but plenty of pleading for more "regulation" from the usual suspects - I really wonder about the funding of the "witnesses"
Welsh Shale?
Looking at the current performance of RWE Welsh Wind it might be a good idea to get on with it PDQ!
Obviously a man for whom the oft quoted, "If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs" was an lesson in how to think.
The proper question for the Chair was:
"And it never happened in the first place. There was already evidence of leaks of methane into the tap water in that area. Could you please expand on why you sought to bring that into evidence, Professor, if you knew it to be disproved?"
dcardno
Exactly what I was thinking. It's not lying but its something like it.
Not wishing to tempt fate but no sign of EM or Chandra yet.
no sign of Vangel yet, either...
I started to read but gave up.
If these folk want the hard facts on production, technology and the rest, why don't they ask some real experts to attend?
They could have a session with, say, the BGS, Cuadrilla and a few more and then have another one for the witterings of Anderson & Co. His early answers nailed his colours to the mast and. as always, avoided reality: if he is so anti-gas and agnostic on nuclear, just how does he propose to keep the lights on??
A while back we had a post here on a presentation given to the city of Dallas based on the experience of Fort Worth with shale exploitation within city limits. Why is it beyond our leaders to do something similar?
It is at least encouraging that the Chair was up on the issue...
As Groucho Marx didn't say - "You don't like my answer? Well, I have some others."
I always thought that it was:
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
...which neatly sums up Thomas...
Professor Thomas's "big lie". Goebbels would be proud.
Another blow for the reputation of academics. Well done, indeed!