Fracking to resume

In an extraordinary development, the UK government has made a sensible decision on fracking, ruling that drilling by Cuadrilla can go ahead.

An independent panel commissioned by the government said the controversial method of obtaining natural gas should no longer be permitted unless a strict new system is set up to detect warning tremors in the rock.

The controversial drilling method is now likely to be given the green light with Ministers set to accept the advice that it could be extended with new controls.

Expect any benefits to the consumer to be swiftly clawed back through tax increases.

All change

Further evidence of the decline influence of green extremism in the UK, with two news stories today. The Mail on Sunday reports that a go-ahead appears likely for Cuadrilla to resume shale gas exploration in Lancashire. Work was suspended after some minor earth tremors were reported.

Meanwhile, hot off the presses is the news that the UK will oppose the idea of the EU producing a new renewables target for 2030 - the existing one runs out in 2020. Given the damage that greens - including those in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties -  have done to the UK economy already, this is probably wise, or at least not quite so extraordinarily foolish as previously.

More tactical lying

This website purports to present an easy to understand overview of the dangers of fracking.

This bit made me fall off my chair:

Fracking fluid

Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including such known carcinogens and toxins as:

• Lead
• Uranium
• Mercury
• Ethylene glycol
• Radium
• Methanol
• Hydrochloric acid
• Formaldehyde

Radium eh? You know, I'm struggling slightly with the idea that a gas company would want to collect hard-to-handle materials such as radium and use them as industrial surfactants. I mean, radium as a surfactant? Who knew?

Smaller than we thought

H/T to Anonym in Unthreaded, for pointing us to this report at Bloomberg. It seems that extractable reserves in the Marcellus Shale are much lower than previously thought:

The U.S. Energy Department cut its estimate for natural gas reserves in the Marcellus shale formation by 66 percent, citing improved data on drilling and production.

About 141 trillion cubic feet of gas can be recovered from the Marcellus shale using current technology, down from the previous estimate of 410 trillion, the department said today in its Annual Energy Outlook. About 482 trillion cubic feet can be produced from shale basins across the U.S., down 42 percent from 827 trillion in last year’s outlook.

I wonder how important that caveat - "with current technology" - is.

Helm and shale

Dieter Helm has spoken out on the effects of shale gas and that "possible positive future" that David Mackay mentioned.

“Unfortuntely peak oil theory is a nonsense” – said Dieter Helm – “The problem is not too little oil, gas and coal but too much of them. Prices are going up - this is totally wrong.”

Chairman of Roadmap 2050 ad hoc Advisory Group supports the idea of using gas as the fastest and most solid bridge to the decarbonized future.

“You have to ask: is there a better way of attacking the issue? Is there a way of cutting increasing coal burn quickly? Yes, there is– it`s called gas.” he said.

It`s still carbon, but of less magnitude.”

Green costs you more

The Guardian is highlighting DECC's energy costs calculator, a system developed by its chief scientific adviser, Prof David Mackay. The outlook, it appears is bleak.

Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation's entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today's ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.

The calculator itself is here. I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly, but it looks to me as if you have to have carbon capture and storage if you want to have gas-fired energy generation. If that's correct then I think it's fair to say that the calculator is a waste of time.

Update on Dec 28, 2011 by Bishop Hill

The No Hot Air site, which I  believe is much better informed on these matters than I, has more on MacKay's handling of the shale gas question.

(H/T J Heath in the comments)

Green desperation

A task force set up by President Obama has reported that fracking for shale gas presents serious environmental risks (as if they would say anything else).

The report underscores differences in public perception of the potential consequences of gas fracking. Industry advocates say the technique hasn’t caused a major incident for more than 60 years, though current techniques were introduced less than a decade ago. Opponents cite failures and accidents that result in tainting drinking water.

If the worst that has happened in 60 years is occasional tainted drinking water, it looks like a pretty benign technology to me.