Bishop Hill Shale fail
Jan 15, 2014 Climate: Parliament Energy: gas Also in Parliament yesterday, we had David Cameron's appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee, a body composed of the chairmen of all the select committees. Being mostly party placemen, the views expressed were pretty conventional, and indeed one could have mistaken it for a convention of greens. Tim Yeo questioned Cameron on climate matters at 17:01, but this was just two greens comparing notes on the climate consensus. Later on (17:33) David TC Davies expressed a desire to discuss climate issues a bit further but said that he might get into trouble if he did so.
The interesting bit came when shale was raised (17:33). This was mostly in a rather superficial way, except for the bit where Cameron explained that he felt we had the correct regulatory regime in place:
We have a very tough set of environmental permissions and permits...I don't think we need to add to that. I think what we should do is allow this industry develop within the very clear framework of environmental rules and regulations and planning that has to take place now...we've got the rules in place, now let this industry have a chance to develop.
Yesterday were heard Chris Wright's explanation of the nature of the shale gas entrepreneur and the fact that shale operators need the freedom to try different recipes and techniques in order to work out what combination will get the gas in their particular rocks to flow. He was quite clear that despite the rocks in the UK looking extremely promising, and possibly even better than some in the US, he was not even considering expanding his operations to the UK. It therefore seems crystal clear that the regulatory regime in the UK is woefully inadequate.
And the Prime Minister doesn't even know it.
Reader Comments (15)
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Bishop, from your text it seems there should be a video, but I cannot find a link so I have not seen it.
So I base these comments on an article in the Telegraph.
Of course Cameron can be confident there will be no power cuts if he elevates security of supply over affordability and green BS.
Just raise the price so that people cannot afford to use power and they will reduce consumption. Then no need for cuts!
Or maybe Cameron does know.
It would make a nice political solution for Cameron. Shale exploration and development severely hampered, but he can keep talking the talk.
+1 for Geckko.
I don't trust Camerloon as far as I can spit him.
Jan 15, 2014 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko
That is the point. Cameron, like all polis, has but two competences, lieing and deception. He wants to keep on the good side of his wife (greenpiss symp) and his dad in law (windmill). They are looking for an excuse to stop shale but can't do it directly because UKIP would win the next election. So, wait for regulatory failure, shale well disaster, blame operators and shut them down in favour of woodchip and windmills.
Let's see if any anyone confronts Cameron directly with the seeming contradiction that he beleives the regulatory environment is all set for private enterprise and development, but strangely powners of private capital and expertise in the industry completel disagree and won't be investing.
The media? Across the benches maybe?
I won't be holding my breath.
As the Polar Vortex continues to hold North America in it's tenacious grip, the UK enters yet another year of the relentless Molar Vortex that is Cameron lying in his teeth.
Vote UKIP!
Apologies for being OT and also if this is old news that I've only just found out about, but I found this both interesting and amusing:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/01/honest-crooks-get-climate-scam/
Shale gas is a bit of an elephant in the room. Everyone knows its potential. everyone knows it would likely turn the UK economy around. Everyone knows it would give us energy security. However they seem to want to bury this boondoggle before it starts! As usual, the ecogreenalists want as many of us in fuel poverty as possible to pay for our sins of being alive, the rest just want to enrich themselves at our expense!
When Alex speaks out, you know you're on the right track.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02791/Alex15_01_13_2791104a.gif
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Got the video now, but for some reason twice. Never mind.
I found the German windfarm ownership model referred to by the bearded committee member intriguing. Apparently, there, local ownership is encouraged and maybe widespread.
So central government subsidy funded by taxpayers would be shovelled into local pockets. Is this an economic way to manage disbursement of government funds? Would it be accepted as being fair?
Despite what you might have gotten from government and company spokesmen, the producibility, let alone the commerciality of British shale gas is far from proven. The recent British Geological Survey report shows that about 150 wells have to some extent drilled into the Bowland Basin, for example, but very few have penetrated/sampled the lower horizons - the portion that is arm-waved to hold the most potential.
The Brit GS does not make estimates of recoverable reserves, and neither does Centrica. I've seen some financial benefits floating around that, as best as I can figure out, are based on assuming some scale of development: the drilling and infrastructure parts, not the production parts.
What is somewhat scary IMHO is that while US gas prices are currently around $3/mcf (higher due to the cold weather), I see from Vermillion Corporation's annual report that Brit gas sells for $10/mcf. If US companies aren't jumping over those sorts of sales opportunities, there is a big problem somewhere. The problem is either in recoverable reserves/well or dollar invested, or that the sales price of $10 is mostly made up of taxes.
When things don't make sense to reasonably educated and reasonably intelligent people, critical data is being withheld in my experience. Shale gas is not a sudden discovery in Britain or Europe. What I see so far is that the Brit/European shale gas is liquid-poor, i.e. mostly methane (CH4), comes from shallower and lower pressure formations, and is located in compressional instead of extensional basins, or at least relatively low extensional ones. For North America, it is all about the liquids; dry gas by itself is not terribly attractive. And the basins are over-pressured: in the States, >48,000 kPa, and in Canada, >30,000 kPa. I don't think the Brit/EU situation has that high a pressure gradient or liquid-richness. The Canadian shale gas basins suffer in comparison to the US also because we have a fundamentally compressive basin which closes up the fracture systems, whereas the American basins are extensional - including the coal/CBM basins. Connective fracture systems - the permeability "pipelines" need to be high even if few. What I have read of the Brit basin so far is that the fracture systems are not as well-developed.
I advise everyone to read carefully information on the Brit (or European) shale basins, looking for hard statements about producibility, about pressures, about liquid to gas ratios. The current lease-edge gas price is too high for ordinary shale gas not to work. Something else is wrong.
The lack of LNG export terminals would be one, the USA obsession with "energy independence" would be one of the things blocking those terminals and if or when those problems are overcome, they will be jumping all over the Asian "sales opportunities" before the UK ones.
Exactly why we need to get drilling. If you listen a bit harder to what those "government and company spokesmen" are actually saying, you'll see they agree.
As the old saying goes, you drill for two things: hydrocarbons or information. You don't get to there from here without taking the first steps.
KellyDown makes a very good point I hadn't considered: the infrastructure for producing shale gas may be not just locally but "globally" (as in "England") inadequate for significant new gas production. Especially if there is liquids production.
I have seen nothing that indicates there is H2S, by the way. The presence of even small amounts of sulphur would be a real problem, not just for the price point but for facilities and equipment that could handle it. The same goes for CO2 content: CO2 and water destroy all but stainless steel piping. You have to strip both out early.
We don't read much about the facilities needed for large-scale shale gas development. While these would create employment and initial project work, the locals might object to the plants mere presence. They ain't a cottage industry.
It is one thing to agree to have short-term drilling and small surface pipes and underground gathering systems, and another to agree to have compressors (loud) and full-scale gas processing facilities in your backyard. Once a frac has been successful and is determined to have created no harm, you can go back to the pub without worry, but gas plants are essentially forever a concerrn.
"Woefully inadequate" implies too laissez-faire when it is in fact the opposite, woefully restrictive.
KellyDown:
Yes, you drill for hydrocarbons and/or information. Good point, we are still at the information stage.
I guess my point, not well enough said, is your point: Britain is not at the stage of saying that the shale gas potential will, not might, become sisgnificant for energy independence or cheap. Centrica et al and the government spokesmen, however, in my opinion, have arm-waved the potential into a perceived fact. In part this reflects our 21st century belief that all problems are essentially technological, and all technological problems are solvable with human ingenuity. This I have some argument with, batteries and fusion being but two obvious examples of simple problems that have not been solved. But the other part is that oil and gas companies derive much of their market value through perceived FUTURE value. So it is in their interest to blur thee idea that what might be good is actually going to be good for sure. And of course the governments we have are far more concerned about us thinking that they are looking after our interests well than actually looking after our interests well - I don't think I need examples here.
We need energy, a lot of energy, to combat the environment that is neither human-urban friendly or conveniently organized for our continuous use. And we need cheap energy if we are to have enough residual effort in our lives that we are not in thrall to what it takes to just getting by. I worry about where all this energy is going to come from - the cheap, large amounts, coming from a career in oil and gas exploration.
We are headed into difficult times in the First World if the eco-green dream continues. The developing world is just going to get its energy as cheap as it can in as much volume as it can - China and India are NOT going to hobble themselves to please Greenpeace. But the developed world? And the dominant societies today? It is cheap and avaliable energy that will keep us in the pleassant and powerful place we - regardless of our politics or philosophies - would prefer to be.
Things are getting tougher. The longer we pretend they are not with regard to energy, the worse things are going to get before they get better, and the longer the fantasy ideologues will put roadblocks in our way. We need to face facts and get on with it. An uncomfortable position, true, but in our best interests today and tomorrow.