Bishop Hill Friends of the Earth want Scotland covered in "high risk" boreholes
Mar 16, 2014 Energy: gas Energy: other Greens Rob Edwards of the (Glasgow) Herald is taking a pop at unconventional gas once again, this time revealing that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has declared that there is a "high risk" of aquifer contamination from deep boreholes.
The story is based on an internal SEPA document obtained under freedom of information legislation - by whom we are not told, but one assumes that, as is normal for Rob Edwards articles, the ultimate source is Friends of the Earth.
The key words "high risk" do indeed appear in the text - indeed they are in the very first sentence, but there is actually rather less here than meets the eye, as the paper concludes that the answer is to shift holes in the ground that are more than 200 metres deep to a different regulatory regime. This hardly appears to represent what you would do when facing impending armageddon.
One other thing stood out to me in the document.
This [regulatory] approach will also apply to deep boreholes (>200m) drilled for geothermal energy recovery, in which there is increasing interest.
The reference to geothermal energy reminded me of an article Rob Edwards had written at the end of last year, in which he extolled the benefits of geothermal energy for Scotland's future:
As much as a third of the heat needed to keep Scotland warm could be provided by tapping geothermal energy from old coal mines across the central belt, a major new study for the Scottish government has concluded.
Warm water piped up from abandoned mine shafts between Glasgow and Edinburgh and in Ayrshire and Fife could help heat many thousands of homes and other buildings for decades, researchers say. They are urging ministers to embark upon an ambitious bid to make geothermal energy a major new source of clean, renewable power within a few years.
And as ever, Friends of the Earth were right behind the Edwards' viewpoint:
Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “It is a nice irony that some homes that used to be heated by coal are now being heated by water from old mine workings, and it would be great to see this idea deployed on a very wide scale.”
All this enthusiasm was centred on a report by the British Geological Survey, which examined "deep" geothermal resources in Scotland, with "deep" defined as more than 200 metres below the surface. It concluded that if you extracted warm water from all the old mined areas in Scotland - some 4800 km2 - using boreholes at a spacing of four per square kilometer, you could indeed meet a third of the country's demand for heat, at least in theory. Unfortunately, the BGS's strongly worded caveat, indicating that practical heat extraction was likely to be considerably lower didn't make it to the Edwards' paean to the technology.
And there you see the problem. To exploit the potential energy source of old mine workings you would have to drill the same "high-risk" deep boreholes that you would need for coalbed methane, but many, many more of them.
I hate to be a party-pooper, my green friends, but you really need to get your story consistent.
Reader Comments (19)
I'm trying to get my head around what Edwards considers to be 'unconventional gas'. Is that similar to unconventional oil: that which is recovered by fracking? Or is it the same as the most unconventional of all oils, bio-ethanol? As I understand it, one of these will be a well-tried and tested means of energy recovery; the other, an insidious means of destroying existing internal combustion engines and harming the environment.
Furthermore, there is an awful lot of experience on how best to use gas to power our society; geothermal is fairly esoteric, and would be hard-pressed to produce a more generic form of energy. But then, FOE are well named. They really are the enemy within.
Of course this warm (tepid?) water from deep coal mines would be magically contamination free, unlike the pure poison belching out of fracked wells some 10-20 times deeper, relative to groundwater aquifers.
Easy to see the massively increased risk of lethal contamination from fracking, provided you use a green energy viewing filter.
What is the difference between coal bed methane and Shale ? Both came up in the "good morning Scotland" chat.
Actually the go to person on this Tim Flannery who supported and I seem to remember was a shareholder in geothermal energy company in the South Australian outback. However Petratherm announced plans to diversify into shale oil and gas in Tasmania. And then there was all those earthquakes in Switzerland which led to the curtailment of there programme. And then there was Steven Chu who as Energy Secretary spent $91 million before closing the programme.
Morph: CBM (coal bed methane) is gas from coal. The coal generally orginates from peat beds. The gas is from CH4 that adsorbs into the coal.
Shale gas is from rock that forms basically from fine mud, and has a few % of organics. The gas mostly comes from the decomposition of kerogens in the shale.
It should be noted that CBM is also considered by some as a renewable resource, as its bacterial action that forms the CH4 from water and organics (either the coal or entrained kerogens).
Harry Passfield, the eco greenie loonies have got it into their head that unconventional is something to do with the extraction process or that the gas itself is unconventional. They don't seem to realise that it just means the geology is different. Everything else about fracking and drilling for shale gas is the same as fracking and drilling for oil. But for some reason they don't picket oil fields - maybe because it would highlight the failure in their arguments.
It's long past time that Charity No.281681 was no longer a "charity" and ceased to get any funds from public bodies (as in your taxes...) .
As far as SEPA is concerned - this is an 18 month old draft document - where, one is entirely entitled to ask is the finished item? The application of water well rules to a far deeper borehole is obviously not prudent. One has to wonder about the fact that not once is insurance mentioned - since contaminating an aquifer must be up there in public liability land...
In all it looks like two bald men talking out their next hairdos.
Meanwhile the English EA continue to sit on enhanced methane extraction from shale and DECC continue to turn our energy supply into an appalling train wreck.
And of course this geothermal energy isn't any more sustainable than the gas sadly. I think 40 years was the guesstimated life.
It seems to me that risk is a very flexible word. No risk whatsoever is to be tolerated for coalbed methane leakage apparently, which if logically carried through would mean no mining allowed anywhere and certainly the industrial revolution would never have started with that attitude. The only leakage risk for Letham Moss was based on pro bono work from a retired Geophysicist in France who put forward a plausible notion that the existing faults will be disturbed and CH4 will then potentially leak upwards to water courses and vents. The action that causes this potential risk is the slight water disturbance during the short-term drilling phase. Yet somehow it's ok if we don't extract the gas and deliberately fast-flow the water permanently? It beggars belief how they perform these mental gymnastics. If Dart energy had proposed flushing these seams with water for the minimal heat therein then they'd have been regarded as green heroes, backed to the hilt by the local councillors. Alas they proposed a less risky, more useful technique and thus they are anathema. Neither is there much consideration that this methane leakage is likely happening naturally anyway. But hey, natural is always ok isn't it?
See my earlier comment posted on March 15 under "Do green claims hold up in court?" regarding Produced Water, the water extracted together with coal-bed methane. The article I quoted called “Welcome Relief - A novel water program in the Colorado mountains” provides an interesting perspective on CBM and how the Produced Water can meet stringent environmental regulations, and can even benefit the environment.
Nah. The Friends of the Earth story is consistent. Anything to do with fossil fuels is bad and must be opposed. Given that prior, we then make up other reasons why extracting/using the fossil fuels will cause a problem. It is all about stopping fossil fuels at all costs. It would be nice if they stopped with the other excuses and changed their name to Enemies of Fossil Fuels. It would be more honest.
The Green churnalist who prmotes this nonsense would no doubt like to see the Highlanders reduced to the extremes of poverty and deprivation that were extant there before the citizenry had access to affordable energy.
The Nazi origins of the Green movement are becoming more obvious with the passing of each week.
Harry , "unconventional gas" is an industry-accepted term for tight shale and coal seam gas.
There's nothing scary about it, it's more like the Greenies aren't as technically clued up as they pretend to be and seize on every new term they hear of because they might get some purchase with the public then.
They are still acting like drilling in the Forth Valley is a new thing, because if they didn't, they'd have to explain why nobody , least of all them, has noticed any of the scary contamination that they predict happening in the last twenty plus years of drilling around Falkirk, Airth, etc.
The annexation of Crimea recalls the "glory" days of Communism, and leads me to wonder if the frenzied environmentalist opposition to any expansion of energy supplies is being encouraged by Russian agents. That would be very much in keeping with the way things went during the Vietnam War, when the US was blanketed with protesters guided and goaded by Soviet agents and sympathizers.
Russia has a great deal to lose if fracking becomes commonplace in Europe, because its markets for gas would dry up. Perhaps the environmentalists are just playing their assigned roles in a new Russian tragedy -- tragic because it impoverishes Europe for Russia's gain.
Colonial, I've been watching Russia Today, a networked propaganda channel, and they certainly gave huge coverage to recent anti-fracking demonstrations in the UK.
I think it's beyond doubt that they are encouraging opposition to shale gas development but whether that encouragement goes beyond the overt cheering to the covert funding s harder to say.
Here in South Africa, we have potentially a very large shale gas reservoir (if the drilling companies were only allowed to explore!). But the 'Treasure The Karroo Action Group' has successfully lied their way into stalling exploration. And now they should be joyful! The S.A. ANC Government has just passed a law that allows the government to take for free 20% of any new oil or gas project, and later, if it's successful, to take any amount of the remainder for "an agreed amount". I, and a lot of financial observers, call that 'theft', and is very likely to prevent ANY new investment in energy. Of course, there's also the coming 'carbon tax' that will probably cause our (coal fired) electricity costs to rocket...
And all to prevent something that isn't happening!
5:48 AM Colonial
If you are looking for that sort of interference - look no further than wannabe demagogue Josh Fox in the USA - whose pockets are stuffed with Venezuelan dosh, originally courtesy of lifelong Yanqui-baiter - the now departed Hugo Chavez. As far as Europe is concerned - the Russians have a significant presence in London and Switzerland and rather a lot of the "executives" of the Russian companies have exchanged their FSB/KGB uniforms for Italian suits...
Doesn't Richard Nixon know that. warm mine water in old coal mine workings is mostly a more or less weak solution of sulphuric acid.?
Doesn't Richard Nixon know that. warm mine water in old coal mine workings is mostly a more or less weak solution of sulphuric acid.?