Bishop Hill The politicians are nervous
Aug 5, 2013 Energy: gas In a sign that politicians in the leafy Weald are getting nervous about exploitation of the shale deposits under their constituencies, former planning minister Nick Herbert has spoken out about his concerns.
"People don’t know – people are worried about the implications and they don’t have enough information to judge how damaging it will be.”
Mr Herbert said ministers had a duty to explain what the effects would be on local communities which are inadvertently sitting on large deposits of shale gas.
He added: “It is the fear of the unknown that is exacerbating local concerns. People understand the national arguments about the need for secure and cheap energy but they just don’t know how much this is going to damage the local environment.
The headline on the article says that Herbert describes fracking as the biggest threat to the countryside, although these words do not appear in the article itself. Most of his worries seem to be more about fear of the unknown than a settled perception of a threat. If he really said that fracking is the biggest threat facing the countryside then he is of course talking nonsense, given that there are several oil wells in the region already and that almost nobody is aware of them.
That said, while the media are hyping the impact of the small band of protestors at Balcombe, Herbert and his colleagues in the House of Commons will remain nervous and will feel duty bound to give voice to their constituents' concerns. Perhaps somebody should send him Matt Ridley's report on shale gas.
Reader Comments (43)
Link doesn't work. [Corrected now. Thanks. BH]
Quite clearly Herbert is out of touch with the real world. How can an ex-Minister be so out of touch with what has been going on with fracking? He obviously hasn't read the DECC fracking document "About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (fracking )" at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225826/About_Shale_gas_and_hydraulic_fracking.pdf
If he thinks people don't have sufficient information, why doesn't he point them to the DECC document?
Neither Andrew's nor Phillip's links work for me.
I tweeted the following a day or so ago. Not enough characters available to include a link, but Google will provide a source for # of wells.
"Number of producing wells in the Barnett Shale (North Texas, DFW area) 24 county area: 15k+ in shale and 69k+ in all formations. Eco probs 0"
If your politicians are so Chicken Little-ish about the dangers, perhaps they should hire some Texas drillers for the job. :grin:
All the three links work for me OK.
The trouble is it's not just Herbert, but several other senior politicians. Yesterday Tim Farron was waxing hysterical (the only appropriate word):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10220853/Lib-Dem-president-Tim-Farron-warns-fracking-could-harm-countryside-for-decades.html
In both cases the MPs are making comments without so much as investigating the issues at stake. For example, Farron said:
"“I am afraid the Government has seen flashing pound signs, and has not considered the long-term threats fracking poses to the countryside.
“I think this is a very short-sighted policy, and we will all be left to live with the consequences.”
This is obviously incorrect: he seems unaware of the report from the Environment Agency. In that report is the statement:
"This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties"
So they're commissioning reports on the matter, but then are either too lazy to read them, or don't like what they read.
If this continues then we risk making a complete mess of the exploration for shale gas in the UK.
I agree with Philip Bratby. It is a politicians job to honestly represent the genuine concerns of his constituents, but they don't vote him in to be wilfully ignorant. As an ex planning minister, this doesn't reflect well on him.
Interesting that the title of the picture at the top of the article is:
"Villagers taking part in the anti-fracking demonstration (Connors) "
I wonder how many of them are from the village and how many are from the "rent-a-crowd"
Once again politicians reacting to events and following the current msm emotive wailings. I thought we elected politicians to lead public opinion.
Sorry my mistake, thats when politicians had had real jobs and could take responsibility for the decisions they made.
Also, they had spines.
Some MPs are not know for intelligence or assiduity. It doesn't surprise me in the least that MPs haven't read a short report on a key issue that was written specifically to provide them with factual information, after all questions asked at select committee hearings demonstrate that the members haven't done their homework
I was genuinely surprised to read that it was Nick Herbert who was making daft statements about shale gas. I really thought he would have known better and I have to assume that he is (quite properly as michael hart says) representing his constituents' concerns but unfortunately without bothering to get the facts.
Or perhaps he has been trying to get the facts only to discover that — yet again! — the enviro-activists' lies and distortions have become the "truth" because nobody with any credibility (like who?) has been able to [correction: allowed to] put the case.
Time was when the government department responsible would have been the obvious source for unbiased, objective information. Not any more.
So there's no point in suggesting that Herbert watch Fracknation for example, because "everybody knows" that's just industry propaganda, innit?
The phrase 'Catch-22' comes to mind!
As for Farron, he is MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale so he's well out of it and is only positioning himself to challenge Clegg for Lib-Dem leadership — another policy wonk with a politics degree from Newcastle and a burning ambition to see his name in lights!
confused
I'm not sure about politicians' having spines.
Remember e e cummings' quote:
Here is a direct link to the DECC guide to Fracking that Phillip B mentioned, published July 30th.
At first glance it seems a bit vague and lacking in detail on some points. I doubt that it will reassure the worriers.
Paul: One wouldn't expect anything coming from DECC to be other than "a bit vague and lacking in detail". However it is a good starting point and should be enforced reading for all politicians and any media person commenting on the "controversialTM BBC" topic of fracking.
Is it still the case that politicians are liable to see 'siding with the environmentalists' as both prudent and a vote-winner?
How long before they see it as the reverse of each of these qualifiers?
How much more harm, failed predictions, over-the-top claims, immoral scaremongering, ignorance and intolerance, do the 'environmentalists' have to provide before they are discredited?
As a child in the south Wales coalfield I had two opencast mines both sides of my home and a deep mine down the road which employed over a thousand mostly men and some women. The opencast method has always caused opposition in south Wales since it really does destroy the environment - look at the blank on an OS map - deep mining does not.The coal produced caused bronchial diseases and the occasional death as well as dirty washing on the line. The product of this industry went to produce goods and energy for communities like wealthy Balcombe.
These people are not in the main concerned over the environment they are concerned over the value of their houses and Nick Herbert his seat - i.e. self interest. They will accept nuclear energy from France in the winter and gas imports from the USA in the future without a moment's reflection. I presume fracking will come to our area and it will be accepted as a necessary development to marry with our wind-farms which were built with barely a whisper of protest. By the way our post industrial area is far more beautiful than Balcombe today, and where were the people of Sussex when we had 24 hour working and blasting. Fracking is a fleabite in terms of inconvenience and the government should stand firm against this NIMBYISM.
Lord Howel in his faux pas actually did say the truth - exploit the North and West but not HERE - what crass hypocrisy.
Every MP has support staff who, if asked, can provide him with the necessary background information on any subject. Ministers have even more support with their SpAds, So there is absolutely no excuse why they should utter the sort of rubbish we are hearing with regard to shale fuels.
In fact, if we were to start a new hare running we could probably send them off after that. Couldn't we do something about the ecological threat to Lundy? I would have expected them to more worried by that than the non-existent fracking in Sussex.
Though Sussex is handier for London, I must admit.
"long-term threats fracking poses to the countryside"- like what?
Windmills pose a much larger threat in terms of visual impact, area coverage, adverse health effects because of infrasound and "strobing". Not to mention the direct impact on wildlife.
They are not called bird/bat blenders for nothing.
Just how much land do these green fruitcakes think will be needed to produce sufficient power (when the wind blows at the right speed) to replace coal/gas/nuclear?
About 50% of the U.K. compared with about 20 km2 for fracking well heads.
@Mike Jackson I favourite this "the enviro-activists' lies and distortions have become the "truth" because nobody with any credibility (like who?) has been able to [correction: allowed to] put the case.
Time was when the government department responsible would have been the obvious source for unbiased, objective information. Not any more."
Someone should put out some Survey papers in Balcombe, Nick Herbert's, Tim Farron constituency etc.
1. How Much has global temperature risen since 1998 ?
2. What's the state of Antarctic ice ?
3. What's the state of Arctic ice ?
4. How much has sea level risen sinnce 1998 ?
5. Is the fear about fracking more justified than fear of MMR ?
6. Under oath to the Senate how many times did the EPA say that fracking had damaged water ?
7. How much damages have US courts awarded against fracking pollution ?
8. How many DIFFERENT videos of burning taps have you seen ?
9. How much your energy bills have gone up, due to GREEN subsidies ?
10. How much on average have the price of everything you buy gone up to cover the sellers increased energy bills, due to GREEN subsidies ?
11. How many poor pople die each winter due to cold, due to fear of high energy bills, due to GREEN subsidies ?
12. Who funds green activist demonstrators ?
13. Do you trust the BBC to report the full story?
14. Do you think the BBC is a slave to green activism ?
15. How much of the BBC pension fund is invested in Green investstments ?
16. How many COALITION MPs have investments in or take money from Green energy companies ?
17. Would you describe David Cameron as a strong leader who makes energy policy on the basis of validated science ?
18. Would you describe David Cameron as a ditherer dazzled in the headlights of Green Activists ?
19. Do you fell manipulated by people feeding you Climate Change Scare-Porn day after day ?
20. Have you had enough ?
@Don Keiller yes we should not let ourselves be paralysed by unjustified fear.
I might add supplementary questions
- How much has the British countryside been damaged by oil/gas production in the last 40 years ?
- How much do you think the British countryside will have been damaged by oil/gas production after the next 40 years ?
- Do you think it conceivable that in 40 years time in Britian there be large parts of the British countryside where clean water is NOT available ?
Hopefully not more frenzied thread-bombing by stewgreen
Just a practical note that may be of use to others. Strangely, the text of Phillip's comment seems to have continued straight out of the comment window. A work-around was to select the whole comment and transfer it to a word processor (in my case Pages). That made everything accessible. I then realised that I already had the pdf, but it was a good thing to reread it. Thanks, Phillip.
"Hydraulic fracturing has created 1.7 million new direct and indirect jobs in the United States, with the total likely to rise to 3 million jobs over the next seven years, IHS Global Insight reports. It has injected billions into North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and other state economies. It’s added $62 billion to federal and state treasuries, with that total expected to rise to $111 billion by 2020. By 2035, U.S. oil and natural gas operations could provide over $5 trillion in cumulative capital expenditures into the economy, while generating over $2.5 trillion in cumulative additional government revenues. In the process, fracking has revived America’s petrochemical, steel and other manufacturing industries, and reinvigorated American ingenuity and economic competitiveness. One shudders to think how awful the US unemployment, part-time employment and economic picture would be in its absence."
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/07/fracing-bounty-all-should-participate-resource-creation-for-economic-revival/
This is Y2K all over again...
Mike Jackson
I was thinking of sending them to Tristan Da Cunha to plug the CO2 emmissions from the volcano.
It turns out that good old green Germany has been fracking gas wells since 1955 without any problems and Fracking shale gas since 2008 see http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/germanys-advancing-shale-plays-3581
Don B; that is the sort of information which is slowly getting into the public domain. There was an article the other day quoting Jamie Dimon saying much the same. We need to wake up to the implications!
America is creaming off a huge, growing wave of capital investment. The problem for the rest of the world, especially Europe, is that we could be left with the crumbs. Massive, multi-billion pound projects like refineries, plastics plants, steel mills, etc do not come along very often. Why would a company build anything here when gas is 4 times the US cost, power is 2 - 3 times more, labour costs are higher, productivity is lower and rules & regs are generally more obstructive?
My personal view is that America is going to boom like it did after WWII. Unless we really get our act together, we will be left in the dust.
@DaveR to quote David Byrne "When I have nothing to say my lips are sealed"
.....unlike some people's
- opposed to politicians jollies, but maybe a trip to successful US fracking fields done in a sensitive way would show them that the activists are hyping scares.
Peter Stroud at 10.02
Absolutely correct regards suppport staff for MP's in the UK, and most politicians globally. However my personal exposure to individuals in these support roles, and this is a generalization, is that they tend to be young and naieve with no industrial or commerical experience and frequently with political aspirations of their own.
Positions of influence like these, that fly under the radar, whether it is direct support to an elected politician or direct support to senior civil servants, seem to be sought by those with a personal agenda.
My perception is that the public face of the extreme environmentalists is rather like the magicians hand that is seeking to distract, whilst the other hand, the one doing the real work, is represented by the quiet undercover efforts of the lobbyists and backroom support staff that function like a fifth column.
"of course ... nonsense ... several"? It seems a bit rash to draw bold conclusions from the several oil wells in the region already, given that it will apparently take several tens of thousands of wells to fully exploit the Bowland shale gas.
anonym
Sez who? And why not go and look at this and play "spot the gas wells"?Forgive me repeating one of my favourite quotes: "Information cannot communicate with a closed mind".
Pity that they didn't have these same concerns for the 'bird choppers' blighting the landscape and disturbing the locals' emotional serenity.
Politicians are nervous.Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon.
Has anyone actually got any pictures of what a Shale Gas Well actually looks like after its been Fracked.Is it just a 3 foot high Stainlees Steel Gas tap sticking out the ground connected to an underground pipe in a field in the middle of nowhere with a few cows and sheep grassing around it.
Mike Jackson 6-33pm
Also "Minds are like parachutes - they only work when open".
@Mike Jackson
The easiest thing I can find is Arthur Berman:
I'm not asking you to love and trust Berman, but this seems to to be pretty close to other figures I seem to recall seeing, and in any case it seems to be roughly in line with other estimates of the number of Barnett Shale wells - and overall, not the kind of thing he could easily get wildly wrong and get away with that. If you have any specific evidence to the contrary then I welcome seeing it.
Overall, based on what I've heard so far I would be emphatically in favour of commercial shale gas exploitation going ahead for the Bowland Shale. The concerns I do have are mainly to do with how profitable (and/or how extensive) Bowland development will really turn out to be. Assuming those questions can be answered fairly well, I agree with Trefor Jones above that it's absolutely the turn of leafy Balcombe and its surroundings to suck it up (as 'twere) for the benefit of the UK as a whole. But it's the most transparent of motivated reasoning to go "wind is bad, therefore wind turbines are monstrosities; shale is good, therefore how dare you say a bad word about shale gas wellheads". Of course wind is unviable while shale is much more likely viable, and indeed probably necessary for the UK economy. It doesn't magically follow that a shale wellhead is necessarily going to be lots of fun to have next door. Here are some pictures of actual Barnett and Marcellus wellheads up close: not too fetching, though maybe not the end of the world either. I also wonder what the actual extraction of gas from the wellhead is like to live next door to. In any case, even if any individual shale wellhead is less of a blight than any individual wind turbine, we are looking at (again) maybe over 10,000 wellheads concentrated in the Bowland Shale area, as compared to the roughly 4,200 wind turbines in the whole UK at present.
anonym
I imagine that the gas the companies will have to pay the landowner to use there land so they will still benefit.
I can not see your first link but your second link shows the drilling tower still in place if you look here
forgive it being the sun but it shows well what a well head looks like;http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/5047771/fracking-elswick-lancashire.html
Berman appears, quite rightly in my view, to be taking a conservative approach to the size of the recoverable reserves but I'm not sure that the rest of his argument holds water. Remember, he's an oilman!
As I understand it the "big thing" about shale gas is that it will replace coal (and hopefully biomass) as the main fuel for electricity generation over a period of decades, either until new nuclear comes on line or (once we get shot of this idea that CO2 is somehow or other some planet-destroying gas) for as long as we feel like. I haven't heard any suggestion that it is planned to replace petrol or diesel as a motive power fuel or that there is any reason why it should.
I'm by no means an expert but I wonder if he is applying his oil experience to Bowland. Traditional drilling might need 10000 well heads (though personally I doubt it). My understanding is that one of the beneficial side effects of fracking is that the number of surface installations is very small compared with the area being worked.
I would much rather hear what Cuadrilla has to say about this than an energy consultant who may have his own axe to grind and has no responsibility — legal or otherwise — for the accuracy of his statements.
Cuadrilla may well lie and say "oh, we'll only need 25 well heads" in which case the day they set up the 26th they're in trouble!
You don't need to trust companies to get the truth; you just take them at their word and then build that 'word' into the permissions, licences, and contracts!
Simples.
Art Berman has a long history of negative reporting on shale, forecasting ruin for investors in the "bubble". So far things have not panned out as he predicted but he has not let that discourage him - a bit like Paul Ehrlich.
In terms of the number of potential drilling sites, it is important to be clear whether we are talking about the number of individual wells or of pads which can have many wells.
The technology continues to advance very fast. The number of wells which can be drilled from one "pad" has increased dramatically in just a few years: up to 40, I have read. Also the distance reached by the horizontal "legs" is now several times greater than for early wells.
This means that one pad can access a much greater area than was previously possible. So future developments will need far fewer pads than even recent work in the US. Consequently less pipeline infrastructure is required.
As for the aesthetic impact, the Bish has now put up a pic of a completed site in Fort Worth - see the latest thread.
@Mike Jackson
I'm pretty sure Berman's basing his estimate on the experience of fracking - and specifically in the Barnett Shale, as he said. This official Texas figure gives the number of then-currently-producing Barnett gas wells on Jan. 2012 as roughly 14,500.
@mikeh
Really? Berman's predictions seem to be fairly on the mark so far.
@venkman
Yes, sorry about that: using the URL seems to hit the paywall but this Google search may get you into the article. But it's true, these are apparently pictures of drilling sites rather than producing wellheads.
Anonym; yes, really. Berman has been banging this drum for several years. In that link he dismisses comparisons between the US and Saudi oil output as "pure poppycock" - strange since the latest output figures have them neck-and-neck.
Read Daniel Yergin if you want a seasoned, objective view of what is happening as this new form of the industry develops and matures.
@mikeh
Well, you've just shifted the topic rather abruptly to oil production instead of continuing to defend your criticism of Berman's track record on the profitability of US shale gas. US oil production does indeed seem to be close to Saudi, though 7.3 million barrels a day isn't quite neck-and-neck with 9.7. I assume the argument that Berman was trying to make was that US oil production costs are far above those of Saudi Arabia. In any case I'm not interested in defending or rejecting Berman in general: he was just the most convenient source I had for a rough estimate of the scale of drilling required to fully develop Bowland.
Any lingering anxiety about Shale Gas would disappear overnight if it is made to coerce present Utility companies into halving the price of domestic energy by the next General election. A clear threat to break up the present Big Six cartel and create new independent franchises for Shale based on a cut-throat price war should do the trick. For the hardpressed and increasingly fuel poor consumer- Divide and rule, and bring it on!
Of course, cartels are illegal in EU Law- so, let us force the Big Six to prove that they are not a Cartel; only a major cut in energy prices to consumers would work given the public's distrust of them, and Failure to achieve this within a clearly stated and short deadline should be taken as evidence.... and increase UKIP's vote...
We the consumers should agitate for an end to high energy prices as being no longer justifiable or healthy. Tens of thousands of cold related winter deaths is a disgrace to a "developed" country and must no longer be tolerated.. Bring on the Shale, if that is what it takes...
Yours sincerely,
Dr Michael Martin-Smith, Bc MRCGP,
@ anonym
My comment was in response to the link you posted to one of Berman's articles: it was his comment, I was not trying to "shift the topic".
Your figures for output look out of date:
" However, based on international monthly oil production statistics from the EIA currently available through November 2012, the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia’s petroleum output in November (see top chart above). Thanks to the significant increases in shale oil production in North Dakota and Texas, total oil output in the US expanded by more than 7% between August and November, while output in Saudi Arabia fell by 4% during that period. Those trends brought “Saudi America’s” petroleum output in November (11.65 millions bbl/d) above Saudi Arabia’s production (11.25 million bbl/d) by 400,000 barrels per day, and is the first time in more than ten years (since August 2002) that the US has produced more petroleum products than Saudi Arabia."
You may well be right on the relative costs of production. However it is a no-brainer for the US to spend that money at home as it generates jobs, boosts service providers and pays huge taxes. Further, Saudi's costs are probably very low but they need the huge revenues to support their whole economy. If their output drops or the price of oil falls significantly they will be in trouble along with the rest of OPEC.
Let's get back on topic: I would urge caution in using Berman as a source as he has an axe to grind.