Bishop Hill A very slow motion car crash
Nov 23, 2013 Climate: Parliament Energy: grid 
Last week Dieter Helm gave evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee as part of their inquiry into shale gas. This was powerful stuff from a very clear-thinking witness and some of his comments were devastating. Here are his thoughts on the impact of US shale on European coal prices:
The immediate price impact [of US shale] to drive down the price of coal in Europe. The coal burn has expanded very substantially in Europe, and since the coal burn has gone up a lot in Britain and the coal price has gone down, you might have expected that electricity prices would be falling in the UK rather than going up.
On the effect of government policies on energy intensive industry:
It is not so much that energy-intensive companies in Europe are leaving Europe; it is just that no investment is being made in energy-intensive activities across the whole of Europe.
On the potential for a worldwide shale gas revoluion
...it is a complete illusion to think that in the medium term [shale gas] is a US phenomenon.
On the government betting the house on rising gas prices
I personally have no particular reason for believing that the gas price is going to go up in the medium term. There are quite good reasons for thinking that it is going to go down. It is abundant in supply, and I think one should be very sceptical about this Government and the last Government embarking on policies that require them to assume that the oil and gas prices are going to go up and then pursuing those policies and not being willing to contemplate the consequence of that not being the case.
And his overall assessment?
...we have a major energy crisis to get through between now and [2018]...[in] the [Energy] Bill at the moment [it] is almost as if the underlying fundamentals of what is happening in our energy market are happening on another planet...It is a very, very slow-motion car crash.
And if he were Secretary of State what would he do about it?
I would probably emigrate as quickly as possible;
Reader Comments (171)
@ SandyS, of course I am familiar with the West Lothian oil shales and Paraffin Young and I presume you know the difference between an oil shale and shale oil?
I'm not at home right now, so this is from memory. I believe Estonia is one country with a significant oil shale industry today where they simply dig the shale up and burn it - like very low grade coal. Jordan has oil shale resources and are importing Estonian expertise to help exploit their resource. These are two very poor, energy poor countries, that are desperate. You want to go that route then good luck to you!
The sophisticated thing to do with oil shale is to try and convert it to liquid fuel - i.e. oil. But this requires adding more energy than you will likely get out. Multi nationals have spent $100 millions trying to crack this problem and then they walk away - when they hit thermodynamics. You need to go and think about it.
Each nation has a distinctive culture.
Each of those cultures which change over time and through the generations, have their good points and bad points.
It is a nation's culture which ensures whether a nation is progressing in any or all of those factors that drive national prosperity and advancement across the whole of it's society.
As an Australian who is a very regular lurker on BH and who after reading about so much of the UK's problems here on BH and other British sites I wonder if this little illustration below of just one aspect of the current British cultural memes is behind a lot of the current angst in UK circles over the serious problems you have over there.
This is a post taken from JoNova's site and is very illustrative of the British elite's sense of total superiority over all other members and sections of society.
If so you really do have problems and are over the hill as far as nations that are still a power and influence amongst the nations of earth and that still retains some modicum of respect.
______________
Hasbeen
November 21, 2013 at 12:19 pm · Reply
I don’t think many realise how the elites think.
Some years back I employed a young Pommy engineering graduate to oversee some shore based work for our marine tourist operation. He was very much one of the Pommy elite, slumming it in the colonies, before getting serious about his future.
He was horrified to find that he was earning less than the senior skippers. It was beyond his comprehension that a skipper who had to have 4 years experience to be eligible for the exams, than another 2 years to be eligible to run the larger, more powerful boats should be so well paid. That the skipper was responsible for 330 passengers had no bearing on his worth.
He could not see how they could possibly be paid more than him, even when he worked 38 house, & the skipper worked over 60 hours, [11 hour days, 6 days] a week for his money.
The belief in his entitlement, & his belief that no common people could be worth what they were paid was almost laughable.
I don’t doubt the AGW scam, among others, is an attempt to stop these common people doing so well. To our elites, this is just a waste of the planets resources, which should always be reserved & conserved for these elites.
Sorry for the double post, we flipped on to p2. I may be a blog whore but I ain't ever been called a troll before - and I assure you I have done a lot of blogging. Enough to know that 98 to 99% of folks who read Andrew's excellent blog never comment but they read what you all say and form an opinion. I've been dumping links here once or twice a week and feel it is polite to show up for "the discussion" every now and then. And will continue to do so until Andrew asks me to stop.
There was and still is an interesting discussion to have about the profitability of the US shale gas industry. My information comes from a range of well informed sources, including two very senior industry folks (one Chairman and one owner). So good luck to you all believing shale gas will save the UK economy when it might not.
@ Entropic Man - an unlikely ally? I have for many years invested in oil companies and am therefore extremely interested in trying to work out their prospects - but it seems a couple of commenters here don't seem to mind whether companies go down or not. The bigger companies of course are owned by pension companies, i.e. pensioners, and so I also care that they don't just go off an blow a tonne of cash drilling crap. The biggest loser from Deep Water Horizon (apart from those who died) was UK and US pensioners. OK so many folks here may be totally dependent upon the State? And may not care about the middle classes who have saved? But that's a different discussion.
I'm not sure if Cudrilla are listed or not. Would I buy stock - definitely no. Would I buy stock if they have a successful well? Maybe. But with the social reality in the UK right now, I would anticipate massive resistance to shale developments in rural England. This is a simple analysis of the way things seem to be not the way some folks here would like them to be.
A little bit about my background. I ran a small oil industry service company in Aberdeen 1991 to 2002. Worked for over 65 oil and service companies on virtually every continent (except Antarctica). The general thrust of the work we did was to increase recovery of reserves. I invest in oil and gas companies - these are the guys who bring you the juice. Each week I mail shot >100 folks in DECC senior management and the whole of Westminster with information I hope raises doubts in their minds about the veracity of climate science and the wisdom of The Climate Change Act. I try to do this in a professional and factual way since that is the only way that has credibility.
Now, I know that several thousand people are going to read this..
SandyS
What worries me is that too many people are expecting the gas glut scenario playing out in the US to repeat in the UK.This is unlikely to happen, if for no other reason than that the companies involved will learn from the US mistakes.
Profitable operations in the UK will look very different from the US and the prices will be much higher.
There is a persuasive push for shale gas exploitation on todays Conservative Home Blog (Tory Diary on the sidebar):
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/11/from-joseppistorey-fracking-an-industry-britain-should-nurture.html
Entropic Man
If as you say the glut is no likely to be created internally in Europe then what is stopping the glut being exported by the US; high prices will drive enterprise. I can't see any European politician surviving putting up trade barriers to importing ship loads of cheap gas . The Japanese have started the trend, since switching off nuclear they require energy from any source, it's been that way for the Japanese since before WW2, one of their primary targets in 1942 were the oil fields in Indonesia as they'd been under sanctions for several years. Free enterprise will ensure that more exports go from the US to Japan and then other markets.
Euan and EM ... The Eagle Ford is not a problem for those who wish to risk their money and reap the immense profits as a reward for their risk.
The Marcellus is probably the least rewarding shale play because there is no oil. And they still make money.
The UK could possibly have massive amounts of oil in their shale formations and the best way to determine that is to drill and watch gas prices plummet.
Euan
Perhaps it wasn't clear my point was that this industry last several decades employed a lot of people, even making some wealthy, and was eventually replaced by a cheaper and more versatile alternative. From your answer it seems you have a deep knowledge of oil shale as it has a long history in the UK, equally as long as coal. You could add China to your users list.
We're sitting on top of what may be a replacement energy source for middle eastern oil (and gas) available at a lower cost and certainly lower costs than wind or solar. We have the technology available to use shale gas as a replacement for electricity generation and transportation without the huge effort we're putting into the current energy policy.
The profit motive should be the main driver for exploitation so personally I think that we shouldn't all be doomsayers about this. Politicians who have bet the family silver on high gas prices might think differently until overtaken by events.
@Euan...the copmments you made about Estonia are interesting in that they show very little understanding or knowledge of the country. Does that ignorance pervade your views on shale gas? i suspect it does. Estonia has completely turned around its national finances in the last 5 years and yet you consider it a basket case. Maybe the basket case is you?
@Bruce, in the last couple of years there has been a massive switch in drilling from shale gas to shale oil. Right now drilling is on the way down. In the Bakken, associated gas is simply flared. The Marcellus is one of the most prolific shale gas plays, and companies are zeroing in on sweet spots (Bradford County) and hot spots.
And yes, its possible we have shale oil - I'd have thought Kim Clay in Dorset should be a prime target. But the reality is in rural England you are going to face immense opposition where ever you go. These are not Greens but simple country dwelling folks who dislike drilling rigs as much as wind turbines.
I agree entirely that UK should be appraising their shale prospects. This should be done in a period of 1 to 2 years - 20 to 30 wells so we can see what the prospectivity is. And then decide if its better to have 1000 s of shale wells or 15, 3 GW nukes.
What worries me, Entropic man, is that too many people are expecting that we are all as obviously credulous as you and can accordingly be milked dry in the interests of cretinous politicians, self-interested activists, inept journalists and 'scientists' whose funding depends on their forecasts of imminent catastrophe.
If you have any spare time, you might like to occupy it by pondering on how/why elements of every human society have lurched towards precisely horrified claims of looming disaster. You may then like to consider why, in every case, they have been wrong.
It is a sorry constant of human history that some immense self-inflicted calamity, punishment for our wickedness, is on the point of engulfing us and that immediate abasement is our only hope
Put it another way, for 'climate scientist' read witch doctor. Or, if you prefer, for 'green activist' read witch hunter.
Future generations, while making precisely the same mistakes, will nonetheless be amazed that apparently sophisticated societies could ever have been taken in by such obvious nonsense.
I really dont give a rats arse about UK shale gas causing a glut in Europe. Quite frankly Id rather UK shale gas caused a glut in the UK!!!
However...imagine what this country could achieve IF it wasnt quite literally p1ssing HUNDREDS of billions of pounds of tax payers money in to the wind in support of renewable energy production? Just think of how many of the THIRTY THOUSAND people who die every year between November and March due to cold related illnesses could be saved because of cheaper energy costs? Imagine how much your energy bill WOULD come down if you werent being extorted directed through your power bill to pay for The Great Green Con (tm).
Funny how people like Entropic Man and Mearns are some how so concerned about private individuals/companies investing their own money in private enterprise where they could either make money or lose money BUT these same people never seem to be actually concerned about any of those THIRTY THOUSAND people who die every year from the cold in England.
Mailman
@ SandyS: The best energy sources are in fact the ones that involve least employment. Now I 'm not against folks getting jobs in energy, I live in Aberdeen, but if too many workers need to be involved then by definition the energy is going to be expensive. And here in lies the problem of where we are. Geologically we have high graded the best energy sources - the ones that needed least folks to exploit, and we are now attacking the next layer that needs lots of man hours and is expensive.
Why not open new deep coal mines in Britain? Huge opposition to closing mines - but do you think you would get folks to work under those conditions again? A new open cast mine has just been approved in Scotland!
O/T a bit
in all this gas malarkey I doubt I'm the only person wondering why ofgem (strapline = "Making a positive difference for energy consumers") seems obsessed with using fractions of "the average bill" related percentage-wise to a ten year old benchmark when
analyzingobfuscating the actual cost of gas and electricity. It's absolutely an abuse of averages and summons up the dictum " The average person has one tit and one testicle".I strongly suspect the "average" consumer would be more interested in an arithmetic average of the national price per
thermmetered m^3 and the highest / lowest prices - perhaps garnished with a SD for the arithmetically inclined.This folds back into the shale debate and the manipulation of gas prices in the U.K. ofgem themselves for example appear to have considerable difficulty in finding out why Qatari gas hasn't been ordered / turned up .... and somebody throttled down the interconnector - causing blips in "wholesale" prices.
Transparency of pricing is one of the things that the "information age" has brought us and - lo and behold - the suppliers are allowed to mess comprehensively with the units used and to use IT assets to generate a smokescreen of obfuscated, disorientating, snappily named tariffs that bewilder most people.
What's clear is that for political reasons the government and its officials and the incumbent gas suppliers (Gazprom , Qataris and the retail big boys) have vested interests in not being honest about gas prices with the clear intention of doing down enhanced methane recovery from shale and coal seams. Enhanced recovery techniques present a clear threat to the status quo.
If private enterprises financed from voluntary investors want to exploit this possible resource and can do it safely and at their own financial risk to provide a boost to UK's foreign trade balance, some energy independence and possibly lower the price - for UK energy consumers - what's not to like?
ps - anybody know where there's a de-obfuscated gas price history?
tomo - try here:
US, European and Japanese Natural Gas prices, 1992 - 2012, Michael E. Webber.
[Source page - http://www.c2es.org/publications/looming-natural-gas-transition-united-states ].
- me and SandyS were looking into this a month or so ago on various threads, mainly for Chandra's enlightenment. The threads were: Energy wave in the Telegraph, Welsh shale, and Consistent industrial policy.
"But the reality is in rural England you are going to face immense opposition where ever you go."
Manufactured opposition. Manufactured by green fanatics who fundamentally hate the UK.
By the way Euan, your timetable indicates to me you hate the UK too,
We keep on hearing the same tired argument that because shale gas might not be profitable, private enterprise shouldn't be allowed to try. It is reminiscent of the bankrupt arguments made against allowing Nissan to build cars in the North East during the depressed Thatcher years.
I'm frequently pessimistic about many things, but at least I try to neither stand in the way of people who aren't, nor to create devious obstacles to thwart their efforts.
Clive,
Our delegates did us proud in upsetting those seeking to use CAGW for wealth redistribution:
"Discussions were going well in a spirit of co-operation, but at the end of the session on loss and damage Australia put everything agreed into brackets, so the whole debate went to waste."
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw
Governments serve rich folks.
Democracy is not necessary, but it is the cheapest way for the rich to insulate themselves from the masses.
Low prices are good for consumers.
The AGW/enviro kooks hate consumers and hate things that do not feed their rent seeking wind and solar scams.
Low prices are what happens when something is successful.
Good rains and good crops yield low food prices.
Screwballs messing up grain markets with phony ethanol mandates hurt food supplies.... unless you are crony and have a big corporate grain operation.
Greedy AGW hypesters enriching themselves off of tax payer funded windmills and solar hurt consumers and force consumers to pay for the pain being inflicted, a double whammy.
The stupidity is sucking people in.
The August 2013 edition of PE, the Journal of the Engineering Profession in Britain, has an article "ITM fuels power to gas suite."
Here is a short extract about a plant to produce hydrogen electricity:
"It will produce around 60 m^3 of hydrogen per hour to feed 3,000 m^3 of natural gas enriched with hydrogen into the grid per hour. An expansion of the pilot plant is planned from 2016, from which the hydrogen will then be converted to methane and fed into the gas distribution network."
At the risk of being labelled an armchair denier, can I ask a simple question?
Would it not be more simple to put down drill holes to obtain methane and similar gases by fracking?
There seems to be some confusion about coal seam gas (CSG) and shale gas. CSG is dominantly methane (and possibly other low carbon number alkanes, and is obtained from coal seams, mainly shallow. These may need fracking, but methane production from some coal seams (by methane drainage holes) has been going on for decades without fracking.
Coal seams commonly come partly "pre-fracked".
Shale gas and oil is derived from highly variable shale horizons, the amount of fracking of which depends on particle size distribution/porosity, and commonly produces a range of hydrocarbons (both gaseous and liquid).
There has been an amount of this going on for decades. In simple words, this is a mature technology which is constantly changing/improving; especially with the constantly improving ability of the drilling industry to steer drill holes to maximise the exposure of the hole to larger intercepts of favourable shale horizon.
There are no simple answers; some of the "mouth-breathers" who are getting so continually upset about this should realise this. And those concerned about all of the costs and numbers of drill holes should probably leave this to the informed (and risk-taking) people who make these calculations from knowledge and not from half (or less) learned cr*p published by the average UK PPE "expert".
@Euan, Ken Medlock, Senior Director of Rice University’s Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies said this about the cost of shale gas in the U.S. “Some wells are profitable at $2.65 per thousand cubic feet, others need $8.10…the median is $4.85,” . So it looks like you're pretty close. Oh well back to lurking mode
Sorry forgot the link.
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/08/06/how-much-does-a-shale-gas-well-cost-it-depends/
Could commenters please try harder to be polite to others.
Euan
The data from USA suggests that Shale Gas is on a par with oil as far as costs are concerned. There are advantages in both America and Europe that the resource is onshore; if wind is anything to go by then offshore costs are much greater than onshore. It is my limited understanding that once a gas well is in operation then the amount of manpower required to maintain production is very low compared with your deep mined coal. Very little infrastructure investment is required as we have used North Sea Gas for 40 years, we even managed a conversion from town to natural gas all those years agoConversion of transport from petrol/diesel to gas is not that difficult and would probably be driven by market forces. It also takes a taxation headache away from government as point of sale tax is easy. Not so with a Nissan Leaf connected to domestic electricity. The requirement for expensive diversion of scientific research into cheap high density electrical storage is removed and can be left to Apple and Samsung.
A look at the economics would seem in order. Not just the cost of drilling, but the inward investment needed:
http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/11/23/rising-costs-a-silent-killer-in-us-oil-exploration-and-produ.html
Not that, at present, EU investment in exploration is more likely to be rewarded.
Please, oh government, protect me from the dreadful prospect of cheap gas.
I might be tempted to burn it to stop my old Mum from freezing to death in Scotland this winter. And with the left over money use it on fripperies like enjoying myself or painting the house or improving my garden or any of those things that ploiie so disapprove of for other people.
Far better that dear old Mum is allowed to pass away .. they say that hypothermia is just like going to sleep - and save the NHS the trouble of neglecting her as she screams in agony. Far better that my house shold just fall down quietly around my ears..it is after all not producing all that much in Council Tax...and far better that the garden be allowed to revert to its natural widerness state as the NGOs advise
And perhaps - if they chopped down all the native trees - it would make a nice setting for a few windmills as well.
So please save me, Mr Davey, from cheap gas.
I found myself in Mr. Davey's leafy constituency of Surbiton and wondered just how much the renewable industry impacted on the poor deluded saps that voted him into Parliament.
'Very little' is the answer.
AFAICT there are no 'biomass' (= wood and dung fired) power stations there. The Hogsmill river does not appear to have a hydro-electric scheme.
My hopes were raised when I learnt of 'Windmill Lane'. But sadly that is a chimera. No windmills :-(
But surely Surbiton is the home of Green Living. The place where Tom and Barbara Good lived The Good LIfe many years ago? A chimera too...tho' supposedly set in Surbiton, the actual filming was done in Northwood about 15 miles away.
The sad fact is that the only evidence of any 'renewables' in Mr Davey's constituency are the large solar panels on the roofs of the large villas that abound. And I strongly suspect that they are primarily installed for the financial gains from the subsidies.. and not to 'Save the Planet'.
One law for Mr Davey's voters - another for the rest of us!
I can't find the comment, but someone was envious of the cheap gas Japan was importing. In 2012, average lng prices in Japan were about $17 / million btu, Europe about $11, US about $3.
LNG Heading East
Global LNG supplies fell for the first time ever in 2012 - that had nothing to do with either Green or UK Government policies.
@ Brian, thanks very much for the info and link. I actually learned something:-) Will be very useful for me writing part 2 of my shale post.
In UK this year, gas supplies will be helped by Elgin and Franklin coming back on and the Jasmine Field newly started, HTHP gas condensate doing 100,000 boepd, this offset by the underlying declines.
@ SandyS - don't think shale developments will ever move offshore unless prices go way, way higher. Off shore ops for conventional oil and gas are being scaled back because of escalating costs. One of the big attractions of shale is that it is on shore. There is in fact cost convergence between offshore and shale with "shit" offshore prospects measuring up to shale onshore.
To sum up, I find it pretty bizarre coming over here. Common ground:
The climate change act needs to be scrapped ASAP
Green policies are jeopardising UK and European Energy Security, and driving up energy prices to the detriment of all
Shale gas prospects need to be appraised ASAP
and divergence of opinion
Green policies are partly to blame for our energy plight but the decline of the North Sea, that the government did not plan for lies at the heart of the problem. Abandonment of coal and nuclear to the private sector has not helped.
While a lot of folks here seem convinced that shale gas will "save us", I am more reserved on that front, think it would be a huge mistake to stake our future on this, especially since we have not yet even drilled a successful well.
Whilst some here don't seem to care much about the profitability of our energy industries, I do. Its only with highly profitable industry that we can have the required investment - if we stay on the private sector path.
While all this hot air is blowing we are not taking the action that would provide energy security for the next 50 years and that is to start building 15 3 GW EPRs
@ G Watkins
"GWPF reports via Die Zeit that the Germans are suggesting that renewable energy companies pay for the back-up electricity required when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Makes perfect sense."
This is a policy I have been advocating for years, i.e. companies should be mandated to provide despatchable electricity, i.e. providers of intermittent supplies should provide the back up.
@ Latimer Alder
Shouldn't the good people of Surbition be made to atone for their sin of electing Mr Davy by having wind turbines (plus any needed pylons and power lines) erected on all green spaces within the constituency? That would demonstrate that they really are committed to renewable energy.
So the argument of those opposed to fracking is; don’t do it because it might be too expensive or there might not be much of it.
This brings to mind Matt Ridley’s friends description of the Precautionary Principle; “don’t do it for the first time”.
Euan Mearns:
"This is a policy I have been advocating for years, i.e. companies should be mandated to provide despatchable electricity, i.e. providers of intermittent supplies should provide the back up."
I agree with you completely. The proposed Atlantic Array, the application for which by German company CEL (actually a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of RWE Ag) is a 1200MW offshore wind farm, is to be determined by the Planning Inspectorate. I am proposing to the Inspectorate that the applicant should provide a back-up power station of 1200MW to mirror the operation of the wind farm and provide a stable baseload supply. That way, operation of the back-up power station (presumably a CCGT) could be monitored to determine exactly how much (if any), CO2 the wind farm saves. Of course, my suggestion will be ignored. What is certain is that the proposal would be dropped if CEL had to build and operate the back-up power station. The combined wind farm and back-up power station would logically be paid the going rate for baseload electricity.
Even though I hope that shale gas will turn out to be a bonanza for Britain, I must say that I do appreciate Euan Mearns's comments on this subject. It is always good to hear the views of someone who has expertise in a relevant field. That does not make his views right - if experts were always right there would be few risks at all in developing conventional oil and gas fields.
However, if we are to develop our shale gas reserves we have to prove that it is economic to do so otherwise we will be imitating the Greens with their wind farms. Let us, as a matter of urgency, encourage firms with the necessary expertise, to identify a small number of what they think are the most promising sites, and then give them the incentives to drill for shale gas there. If they are successful, they and other firms, should not need much in the way of incentives to drill more wells.
The same argument applies to coal-bed methane.
@ Euan
It's not accurate to decribe Estonia as very poor, or to use as an example of *desperation*. In fact the story in Estonia is quite the opposite. Having spent time in Tallinn putting in technology for their state broadcaster, I was surprised myself to learn that our perceptions of the former Soviet occupied country do not warrant the same derision as countries like Bulgaria, or even Latvia it's neighbour. I think any Estonian's reading that they are very poor and desperate would be horrified.
Estonian's mainly enjoy a good standard of living - it is only 7 places below the uk - according to the human development index, above both Poland and Portugal - and 66 above Jordan:
"Estonia ranks high in the Human Development Index, and subsequently performs favourably in measurements of press freedom (third in the world in 2012), economic freedom, civil liberties and education... A balanced budget, almost non-existent public debt, flat-rate income tax, free trade regime, competitive commercial banking sector, innovative e-Services and even mobile-based services are all hallmarks of Estonia's market economy... In 1994, based on the economic theories of Milton Friedman, Estonia became one of the first countries to adopt a flat tax, with a uniform rate of 26% regardless of personal income... "
And as far as energy goes:
"Estonia produces about 75% of its consumed electricity... In 2011 about 85% of it was generated with locally mined oil shale."
!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia
All in all, Estonia is well worth it's tag as the Baltic Tiger.
Euan -Our wise masters will only permit shale gas extraction if combined with CCS. This is mainstream thinking amongst the political class. See:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/05/lord-smith-comments-on-shale-gas-emissions
for example.
I know it Wont Work, you know it Wont Work, anyone with an ounce of engineering sense knows it is bonkers (but may play along for the grant money)..... We live in the age of rule by PPE graduates who realise the naysayers to their plans are just bigots benighted by the social construct of so called 'physical reality'. Monbiot knows better, and he knows that he knows better than you because he knows that he just plain IS better than you, morally and intellectually.
@ Justin, OK I didn't mean to put Estonia down. I imagine that burning their oil shale has provided a pillar for prosperity. The main point about that exchange was to point out that oil shale and shale oil are two quite different entities. Jordan is poor, compared with its neighbours, and from memory is embarking upon a shale oil mining exercise. While this sort of thing is going on in one part of the world only underlines how futile it is for EU countries to be trying to reduce their own emissions,
@ Roy - Nov 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM
"It is always good to hear the views of someone who has expertise in a relevant field. That does not make his views right - if experts were always right ........"
........... we wouldn't have to provide very expensive 'solutions' to a non-existing problem of increases in atmospheric CO2.
Shale, the gas they can bloody get out of Estonia.
@ Arkle - thanks for the link. As you say this is totally bonkers - but don't you love the photograph of Smith. So we are talking about shale gas development in the UK before any has actually been discovered and we are discussing hobbling it with CCS and this will all but make sure that no one will drill any wells. Produce 1000 cubic feet of gas, loose 500 cubic feet as waste heat in your CCGT, and use >100 of the remainder to fuel CCS, leaving you with 400 of your original "expensive" shale gas.
@ Phillip:
The changing face of UK electricity supply
Not much point building a new 1200 MW CCGT since we already have loads of CCGTs standing idle - check out load factor in Jan this year. This past year nuclear and coal (very cheap coal) have been running flat out - of course, some of the coal fired power stations have since been wrecked. CCGT has been standing idle for much of the time - the owners of course are losing money, hence higher electric prices. So RWE (who are also losing money in Germany) should buy up some of the surplus CCGT capacity. Of course if they had to do this they wouldn't. But there is potentially serious trouble sourcing gas this winter. Last winter, virtually no LNG came to the UK, globally most of it went to Japan and S Korea. It is a finite market constrained by the number or tankers and LNG trains. Prices already sky high in Japan. Last I heard, gas exports from Libya were off / down owing to Arab Winter. Not sure what positive impact will be of Elgin, Farnklin and Jasmine gas in the UK. Buy some candles and wooly jumper.
To be fair to Euan Mearns, it could be that he (she?) is attempting to be a Devil’s advocate. That most of the arguments are counter to those held by the majority here should not result in the more unpleasant responses that are appearing.
Euan, it might be that your name (chosen, or given?) starts with E and U that gives most of us a subconscious raising of hackles; also, your initials are those of a poster with similar volatile opinions to yours.
You raise the spectre of North Sea oil; considering the horrendous costs that were involved in establishing the extraction from those fields, it is likely that, today, the arguments against getting that oil would firmly outweigh those for. With that in mind, can you not see how the considerably less costs required for assessing and extracting shale gas should not be seen as a prohibitive expense but a valuable investment? Perhaps you have had training as an accountant; they are unable to see an opportunity with associated risks, they only see the risks.
Euan Mearns,
I don't know where you get the idea that country people will be against fracking, in rural Northamptonshire where I live if you ask any one with half a brain, they say that if it means lower energy prices, they can frack in their back garden.
It is safer to search in the maze than to remain in a cheeseless situation.
Spencer Johnson
What a lot of good objectivity and common sense from Professor Helm about the economics of energy. What a shame though that he still believes that human emissions of CO2 will cause high levels of global warming, in spite of the empirical evidence to the contrary, and that the future social cost of the warming has a high enough present value to justify the pricing by governments of that externality now, in spite of the hopelessly flawed economic analysis that has led to that view (Stern report).
If only Professor Helm could be persuaded to look again at those two points and change his mind about them, he would be a terrific advocate of common sense on al fronts.
Roger
Perhaps the people of Northamptonshire are more realistic than the feather-bedded townies that inhabit chunks of rural Sussex and see everything that might spoil the rural idyll (apart from themselves, of course) as a threat to their way of life, aka their property values.
What I'm more surprised at is the resistance that is being orchestrated in places like the North-West where it has long been understood by most hard-headed Lancastrians that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that if you want to keep warm in the winter you need the fuel to burn and you can only dig it out of where it's at!
Guy Leech at 1:20 pm said: "What a shame though that he still believes that human emissions of CO2 will cause high levels of global warming,"
I think that Dieter Helm's views on policy are listened to far more respectfully because he expresses conventional views on the risks of global warming.
If a 'policy sceptic' is also a 'science sceptic' their views can be dismissed by saying 'you don't believe in the greenhouse effect anyway, so it's hardly surprising that you want to undermine the policy'.
someone HERE implied that the UK oil industry is winding down.
- On Peter Day's BBC prog about Aberdeen Oil he said we've had £300bn tax revenue out of it so far (and there is £1,500bn of easily recoverable oil/gas to come out)
- £300bn over 40 years seems like nothing
..recently UK annual extra borrowing has been £150bn/year and now it's £99bn (what not 100 ?)
Mike,
It used to be.
These last 25 years, the global warming scam has been taught 'as gospel' in most of British schools - agitprop they called it in the DDR. Now whether all kids are taken in is another matter - I strongly suspect not. However, there are some who swallow it and it is they who worry about polar bears and it is they who vex the rest of society, "make them pay!"
And "save the world!"
Willingly, do they join greenpeace et al - almost all of these young uns do not possess the cognitve capacity to think as an individual being and thus to question and to work things out for themselves as many of their peers have done - if they actually care enough which some evidently do not and there are also reasons for that.
This demise, it's been going on for longer than that. Since Anthony Croland the Labour party enforced its appalling education 'reforms' - the vast majority of British schoolkids the good children and the strays their futures and education standards, methods, spectrum and academic rigour, plus teachers [because they do not know any better] has been purposely, mendaciously, dumbed down.
'The machine' no longer requires the populace, er the proles to be well educated - for a ''real education and in the wrong minds can be a dangerous thing" this is not what TPTB desires. All that is required are units, units that are totally compliant and can be controlled.
OWG and the Frankfurt School?
Indeed.