Monday
Nov252013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Cheap energy, lots of jobs - the LibDems are going to hate this
Nov 25, 2013 Economics Energy: gas 
Poyry Consulting have issued a report on the impact of shale gas exploitation across Europe, considering what happens if we do a bit of it or a lot of it. They say things like this:
In the Some Shale Scenario, net employment increases by 0.4 million by 2035 and 0.6 million by 2050. In the Shale Boom Scenario, net employment increases by 0.8 million jobs by 2035 and 1.1 million jobs by 2050.
A million jobs by 2050 sounds pretty good to me
As does this:
Household spending on energy costs by 2050 could be lower by up to 8% in the Some Shale Scenario and by up to 11% in the Shale Boom Scenario, when compared to the No Shale Scenario. Over the period 2020 - 2050 total cumulative savings could be €245bn in the Some Shale Scenario and €540bn in the Shale Boom Scenario.
Reader Comments (50)
"The trickle-down effect of this shale gas activity has been equally impressive. The hydraulic fracturing process has revitalized the U.S. oil & gas industry and has helped increase employment in the sector by 53% over the last 7 years, according to the American and Common Wealth Foundation. The World Economic Forum has recently released an updated study on energy and economic growth in the U.S., which shows that shale gas is essential to both: The shale gas industry alone employs 600,000 people in this country and the oil and gas sector is projected to grow at 6.9 percent through 2015.
"The shale gas boom is broadbased. Natural gas is a reliable source of power, as a dependable back-up to intermittent wind and solar generation. As the momentum of using shale gas gathers pace, the Liberty plant in Pennsylvania points to yet another trend: more and more gas-fired power stations will be developed on sites near the shale gas fields to take advantage of this cheap fuel source. In many ways, it is often more efficient to transmit electricity than to transport natural gas."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/11/25/a_shale_gas_boom_in_its_infancy_signals_positive_growth_100753.html
There's one place you won't see this reported and that the BBC. Their pension fund is so committed to renewables (I understand their renewable investments are sitting on staggering losses, frequently up to 70%) that their daily global warming/climate change has to take precedence in order to try to recoup some of their massive losses.
It's nothing short of fraudulent reporting using the taxpayers money. The conflict of interest is staggering.
But cheaper energy means FibDem's Clegg's Miriam will earn much less from her windmill job. Also Miiband E's Justine will earn much less from fronting EdF. And Cameron's Samantha's dad and mum will earn less from their windmills.
Shale gas needs to be sold as a way to reduce the total costs of wind and solar. A natural gas fueled gas turbine is the UK's lowest capital cost path to provide the necessary backup energy for intermittent renewable energy sources. Shale gas development is the quickest way to lower natural gas prices in the UK. Shale gas development in the UK also improves the reliability and security of the natural gas supply in the UK.
Europe needs all the money it can get.
According to Jo Nova: 20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change, climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced in Warsaw today.
Another good reason to leave the asylum.
AlecM: You seem to assume that the motive to favour one's close family will trump all other considerations, including the good of the nation, for all three party leaders. Less cynicism and more realism are required. (A combination not everyone on BH may recognise as possible so I think worth reflection.) At least some politicians care about gaining and maintaining power more than they care about the financial gain of close relatives; some even care about the greater good of the nation. They didn't go into politics because it would make them richer than alternative career paths. Therefore the 'facts' you mention are almost irrelevant. What's not irrelevant is the electoral cost of backing shale and fracking. Due to successful green propaganda this will not be zero. But surely nobody is doing more than Bishop Hill to tip the odds in favour of financial blessing, not cursing, for the UK in the next few decades. Thanks for that.
Even with maximum realistic cynicism about politicians and civil servants there is some hope - because the really juicy non-executive posts after retirement from policy central are going to be with the companies that successfully exploit shale. Some I'm sure have already spotted this. Rome wasn't build in a day and I'm sure there were some dodgy deals in the process of it being built. Can our ruling class achieve some level of rationality post the current, lamentable energy bill? Shale has made it much more possible.
A few months ago I saw a Newsnight report that the number of flight from Denmark to Teeside airport had increased from 1 to 10 per week mainly windfarm tecnicians flying in to service the big offshore wind array up their Middleborough.
So much for British Renewables jobs.
"There's one place you won't see this reported and that's the BBC" John B
So far it is (predictably) only in the Telegraph
Shale predicted to add £3 trillion to Europe's economies
Maybe Roger Harrabin will mention it when he's got the expert opinion of one of his Greenpeace colleagues.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/payday-lenders-to-sell-electricity-instead-2013112581439
John B
According to the BBC here their top 10 investments (not all politically Correct) are
GlaxoSmithKline - 50.7
Rolls Royce - 48.2
BP - 46.7
Amazon.Com - 46.4
AstraZeneca - 46.3
Royal Dutch Shell - 43.0
British American Tobacco - 37.8
Roche Holding - 36.3
Rio Tinto - 34.2
BT Group - 34.1
Imperial Tobacco Group - 30.9
Bish, sticky a link to the BBC's pension fund.
As SandyS has put, there's nowt "Green" in the top 10, last time I checked, anything that shade came in about number 36, IIRC!
Thanks SandyS. Amazon come fourth but tonight on Panorama there's the following expose: Amazon workers face 'increased risk of mental illness'. Exactly the editorial independence I'd expect from our still-excellent-in-some-areas state broadcaster.
So where are all the green investments that force Roger Harrabin's hand? I've never believed this particular and peculiar conspiracy theory. If by any chance people like Roger know it's bunk (because they know it's never once influenced them or caused pressure to be brought to bear from on high) is it any wonder that they think sceptics are a bit, er, crackpot? Isn't the problem mostly false belief, as we would see it? Opportunistic rent-seeking in the renewables area is not the main problem with Auntie in my view - though because of false idealism she can be very blind to places it obviously exists.
Sorry Warren but shale production has not been economic. If you look at the depreciation schedules you see accountants using ESTIMATED ultimate return rates rather than rates that are determined by the production data. That means that costs are underestimated and losses are minimized or turned into gains. But the balance sheets and cash flow statements tell the real story. Even after nearly a decade in the shale space producers have yet to be self financing. Note that given the huge decline curves the payout for shale is supposed to come in the first two to three years. Yet, there is still no positive cash flows for wells outside of a few core areas. Now one can hide from reality for a while but eventually the data is impossible to ignore. In the Bakken we are approaching the critical period where the data will show a peak some time in the next year. Since the Bakken producers were unable to produce positive cash flows when production was rising how exactly will they pay back their loans when production is declining rapidly and most wells are down to stripper status in five to seven years?
You are smart enough to do the math so I suggest that you look beyond the spin and hype by focusing on the actual production data. When you do manage to take an hour or two the story will not be as appealing as you seem to think it is.
Ben Pile has put up a great post at Spiked.Respect Ben
However check out this companioning post by James Heartfield
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why_greens_love_high_fuel_bills/14333#.UpOW3-Ixikw
So called Fuel Poverty Action heard their spokeswomen being interview on Ian Dale LBC Drivetime show a few month back.
They say they are Fuel Poverty campaigners but are funded by Lush.When the penny dropped.They support Wind Turbines hate Shale go on about Tax Avoidance etc etc.Nothing to do with genuine Fuel Poverty obviously.
They are just Environmentalist cynically masquerading as concerned Fuel poverty campaigners.As Ben rightly states high fuel prices in support of Carbon Reduction has Toxified the Environmentalist Brand.
Cameron and the Environmentalists have only just suddenly realized that.
I don't like putting my faith in any politician but Nigels UKIP Barbarians are banging on the gates of Rome and number 10
Despite all that was written on the previous Shale thread and elsewhere I remain unconvinced by the argument that, even if we, and others (EU States), are sitting atop another 'North Sea Boom' scenario, it will make much of a difference at the consumer end.
The EU and, by extension (especially with our current brood of Politicians?), Britain are committed to phasing out Fossil Fuels. An EU ‘Shale Boom', were it even allowed to happen, would be so heavily penalised that neither Industry or Consumers would see any benefit.
Simply from a practical POV, it seems highly unlikely, unless SG were to be found evenly right across 'The EU28', that the rest of the EU28 would want The UK and Poland, for example, to suddenly be able to offer a cheap, abundant energy source to potential investors in the 'treaty bound' 'internal market'.
Don't forget that 'The free movement of Capital, Labour and Goods' is at the core of 'The Maastricht Treaty'. If it turned out that two of the twenty eight members could now offer 'thermal energy' at a quarter the price of the remaining 26 then the other 26 (QMV) members would then vote how exactly?
In such a 'free for all' (very cheap energy offered by just a few members), BMW, Peugeot, Nissan and every other 'energy intensive' industry would be flocking to 'the two' just as fast as The Board could move them.
Not going to happen. Not now, not ever. It would undermine French Nuclear, German Renewables (and now hard Coal) and every other 'player on the block'. If the price of energy were not key to our entire lives then why are we even discussing it? 'Energy' is everything. Your chances of surviving the Winter, your chances of employment - energy price is all.
The UK (or Poland or any other member) offering 'energy' at half the price of any of its main (EU) competitors in a 'treaty bound open market' is simply not going to happen. We will, even with a 'best will in the world' Government be out-voted by the rest of The EU at every stage. We may gain 'allies' later once some discover SG potential within their own borders but right now we will be voted into obscurity.
The other EU States are not going to allow a 'minority' to undermine their own domestic economies by offering far cheaper energy. Regardless of CO2 considerations. It [a shale boom] is either not going to happen at all or, if it does happen then it will be 'agreed' that the 'proceeds' (via taxation) end up at the Federal level thereby giving no state advantage over another.
Our own Government needs to pay off its horrendous debts and 'The EU' (like The UN) needs an independent, of 'member states', source of funding ... Guess who, in all this mess, isn't going to see any benefit at all from SG?
bh3x2 on Nov 25, 2013 at 7:05 PM
"The EU and, by extension (especially with our current brood of Politicians?), Britain are committed to phasing out Fossil Fuels. An EU ‘Shale Boom', were it even allowed to happen, would be so heavily penalised that neither Industry or Consumers would see any benefit."
"... Phasing out Fossil Fuels"
What, all of them, totally!
Phasing out the EU would give a better result.
The EU and, by extension (especially with our current brood of Politicians?), Britain are committed to phasing out Fossil Fuels. An EU ‘Shale Boom', were it even allowed to happen, would be so heavily penalised that neither Industry or Consumers would see any benefit.
Politicians cannot ignore reality for very long. I expect that coal and nuclear will become a big part of the UK's energy strategy in a few years and anyone associated with the 'green crap' will be voted out of office once consumers figure out what is going on. My problem is not environmental issues associated with shale production but the fact that shale production is not economic.
Vangel: "Sorry Warren but shale production has not been economic."
Yes, it has.
Vangel at 6.50 pm
Gold miners mostly ended up broke. The supply chain (wheel barrows, tents, beer etc.) made the profits. Railways and airlines have always been zero-sum investments when all entrepreneurs are considered together. But would you not agree that our society has benefited hugely from gold, rail and air travel? Silly me, of course you wouldn't.
Regards
MP
"But cheaper energy means FibDem's Clegg's Miriam will earn much less from her windmill job. Also Miiband E's Justine will earn much less from fronting EdF. And Cameron's Samantha's dad and mum will earn less from their windmills." --AlecM
Well, that's it then.
"According to Jo Nova: 20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change, climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced in Warsaw today. Another good reason to leave the asylum." --Schrodinger's Cat
Too late. The madness has already spread.
Vangel
I have asked you before not to repeat the same arguments on every thread about shale. Further transgressions will result in a ban
"Shale gas is not economic"
That may or may not be true but is certainly true of wind or solar and of offshore wind in particular. However, profitability is what matters and shale does have a fighting chance of providing one whereas wind and solar can not - all profits come from subsidies, not from the margin between production cost and sale.
That BBC Pension list doesn't prove anything
- I am surprised at people saying "oh well that proves the green investments is a myth"
1. It is not a complete list of BBC pension investments ..it's headed Top equity investments
and concludes "Does not include any assets held in pooled funds."
..It's only a list of equities So if BBC has investments in BigGreen Hedgefunds it would not be mentioned, no any other kinds of investments they have.
There is something slightly suspect about it as well .
- I think the Green fund accusation is from the Mr Big of Green investments been hired to manage the BBC fund, but someone else could tell you more.
That may or may not be true but is certainly true of wind or solar and of offshore wind in particular. However, profitability is what matters and shale does have a fighting chance of providing one whereas wind and solar can not - all profits come from subsidies, not from the margin between production cost and sale.
Wind and solar are clearly too expensive to be a solution to our problem. But so is shale. While you can make a good profit in the core areas using current techniques those are too small to provide much oil or gas. The marginal formations are capital destroyers and cannot be relied on.
Keep an eye on the Bakken production data. Given the huge amount of depletion from existing wells we should see a peak some time in the next year unless the producers can borrow much more money and decide to keep drilling no matter how cash flow negative the process is. But even if they are reckless the peak will only be postponed a few months. Once that happens keep an eye for the support of the USD.
- In 2010 Express £8bn BBC eco-bias
STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today.
- Biased-BBC report : decided to entrust a major strand of the fund management to an outfit called Hermes EOS (gives a total of £9Bn for BBC fund)
- The original June 2011 BBBC article accusing the BBC fund of green bias
(yes EOS are still in charge that website some one first listed today says "The Trustees have appointed Hermes Equity Ownership Services (EOS) to vote at company meetings on behalf of Trustees."
Vangel keeps talking about the negative numbers in balance sheets, financial statements, etc., and concludes that shale revolution is actually a bubble. Yet, two years after Vangel first warned us of unprofitability of shale gas below a certain price ($7 per whatever unit?), this supposedly loss making industry is in fact getting bigger and bigger. If he is right about the numbers in financial statements, then one can only surmise there is some kind of creative accounting going on, the kind that grew and enriched Hollywood even as the balance sheets for blockbusters showed huge losses.
stewgreen
Not wishing to go too far off topic and down BBC pension fund route. The list of investments at that page is the top 100, and totals 1616£m and the large number is probably a typo missing the decimal point and should be 13.9 as that's where it fits in. To my mind the list would seem to be a not unreasonable list of investments for a pension fund. Any green investments in addition to that list would not be unreasonable for any pension fund manager.
The accusation that the BBC pension fund is heavily into green investments and hence the BBC green bias is aired from time to time, here and elsewhere. Being a sceptic and taking the motto of the Royal Society as a good rule on these things I check other references, in this case the accusation seems totally unfounded and even if the fund is being managed by your "Mr Big of Green investments " the list shows no sign of that and more importantly the first time I saw this pension fund claim must be 3 or 4 years ago.
I'm going to put anything more, if there is, on the BBC pension fund on unthreaded.
Shale gas produciton produces jobs that are not at taxpayer expense, the drilling companies pay taxes,and do not receive tax payer subsidies to operate. Shale gas, like real commodities, faces supply/demand pressures. to claim shale gas should not be done because the companies have to struggle to stay in business is only to deomsontrate a deep lack of understanding regarding business and finance.
We do not tell farmers to quit because commodity prices for grains or livestock is difficult.
Yet the so-called enlightened of AGW would have us keep the losing propositions of wind and solar and not even try the proven success of gas, oil, coal and nuclear.
540bn Euro savings!
That's getting on for two thirds of what we're going to waste on Ed Miliband's egregious 2008 Climate Change Act!
The next time you hear anyone claiming that oil and gas or nuclear receive subsidies, you can always point them to this answer from Greg Barker, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change:-
'There are no subsidies for oil and gas, and no subsidies for nuclear.'
in an official HoC reply posing that very question.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120626/text/120626w0001.htm#120626w0001.htm_spnew32
(but there are for renewables...)
stewgreen
It's actually all here,BBC Pension Report and Accounts 2013
@SandyS 1616£m means those equities are only 20% of the total fund (it's a list of the top 100 equities they invest in i.e. individual companies they invest in without using an investment vehicle.)
"£10.3 billion as at 31 March 2013.
- They might have 5p or £8.6bn of the remaining in green investments..I don't know for now
"seems totally unfounded " - no not quite why have they got Mr Big Green investor managing the fund then ?
am I supposed to wade thru the report ?
..yep at a glance renewables fund shows up £15m, £18m I guess there's more ..yep over too unthreaded
stewgreen
Unthreaded.
Phasing out fossil fuels, Robert Christopher; yes, that is the dream of many in HMG – just think of the money Cam-moron’s in-laws would be raking in! However, there is a possibility, bh3x2 (now there’s a name that rolls off the tongue) (Nov 25, 2013 at 7:05 PM), that the electorate might wake up to reality and do an Australian – kick the self-confessed, yet elected enemies of the country out!
And if they do… watch out for low-flying pigs…*sigh*
Frazer was right in his predictions, if a little early – we are do-o-o-omed.
I think that you make the same mistake as many when you talk of what Politicians can or cannot ignore. You assume that these same Politicians have any real power to influence the matter at hand. Put simply, if your 'representatives' have no power to tax Google (or whoever), then it matters not one jot which way you voted last election. No Politician can act on your behalf (to tax Google) - they don't have that power.
It is something people really should get used to in order to avoid frequent post election disappointment. UK Fracking is not something that will be decided in Wasteminster.
bh3x2 said:
I think this is likely. I'm sure some of our betters will have also spotted the promise of shale gas to provide massive amounts of revenue for governments to spend. Poyry have now put some figures on it for them to ponder. Half a trillion euros in green taxation will be too attractive to the wealth re-distributors, social progressives and green alarmists alike for them to leave it in our pockets.
One of these days it will down that hydrocarbons are not fossil. As Thomas Gold has theorized. And there is almost unlimited amount of it.
"It costs producers an average of $9 million to drill and complete the average well in the Bakken."
"A typical Bakken well will continue to produce oil for the next 45 years. "
"Over those 45 years the average Bakken well will produce around 665,000 barrels of oil."
66 million dollars worth of oil. And a huge amount of steel and other economic benefits.
"That same average well should yield around $23 million in profit to the producer over its life. That profit won't come at a steady pace, instead most of it will come up front"
"The average Bakken well will generate over $4 million in taxes"
"The industry has already drilled about 5,000 wells in the Bakken, which means that the play might only be 10% developed. "
So Bishop, did you tell your fans that this report was the result of a model? Projections to 2050 using models and they come up with figures like 8% cheaper, with no error bars, and you believe them? Where did your skepticism go? And production seems to go up for a while and then start tracking down yet the GDP and other impacts suddenly accelerate around 2050; when production is heading down - not even a little skeptical about that? And guess who commissioned the report. Doesn't that raise a bit of skepticism?
BTW what is wrong with Vangel using the same arguments to dismiss shale on each thread. You and your fans use the same arguments (or just starry eyed optimism) to promote shale whenever it is mentioned. Could it be that you don't want to hear an opposing voice?
If there are nearly a million jobs created from shale exploitation you may learn the hard lesson of on shore labor from foreign labor pools. On shoring is done where manufacturing can't be taken to cheap labor - the cheap labor is brought in country. There is no particular need for this, but the US has at least a million off shore workers in hi-tech jobs in the major cities. This at a time when native population unemployment, particularly for young people, is crazy high. Rather than invest in educating our people already here we're putting them on the dole and foreign students are displacing native students in our city and state colleges. Rather than invest in expanding our native construction and manufacturing capacity we're destroying that capability and making costs of entry too high to try.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/sf-bay-bridge-may-have-been-lost-jobs-opportunity-812757
Nov 26, 2013 at 3:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterChandra
This is just ZDB with a different moniker using the same thread disruption techniques.
In the real world, the success and economic activity resulting in shale gas/oil in the Marcellus and Eagle Ford and Bakken are dismissed with confidence and no facts by the Oil Drum acolytes. It is a cult like AGW.
RKS: How can you know it's the same person? How can you know that ZDB wasn't more than more person way back? Nyms are what they are and being tied to old-fashioned ideas of identity isn't how some wish to play the game. (Those that turn up at pub meets and the like are clearly a different case.) The Bish does what he needs to.
Nov 26, 2013 at 7:52 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake
Take it literally if you want. Merely pointing out the identikit similarities between one troll nonentity and another. I see you're still wittering on about your 'nyms' obsession!
Manchester shale gas well to complete in Q1 2014
RKS: You see something that doesn't exist, my friend.
Beaverbrook: I believe IGas. And this could go a long way not just to save our bacon financially but to cause the unwinding of the whole CAGW agenda. It is a truly amazing situation.
Richard
Much better than this situation:
This stench would do fine there.