Posts Tagged shale gas
What a Fracking Week!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Shale Gas on April 18, 2012
For the last year or so I was beginning to believe that our war against shale gas was going the right way. In just the last week, however, two separate pieces of news come along that lead me, depressingly, to think that may not be the case.
Regular followers of the Green Review (hi both) will be aware that I have been against fracking for some time now, and that this is not my first post on the subject. Fracking – the term used to mean hydraulic-fracturing – has time and again been proved to be destructive, causing earthquakes in Blackpool and polluting water sources in America – check out this video with the flaming tap at the end (it also gives a good explanation of why fracking is so destructive). It would also appear that Pennsylvania residents are being forced from their homes in the pursuit of shale gas.
In the year since I first wrote about my concerns over fracking, there seemed to be a general feeling of contempt for this ‘untapped energy source’ and I really couldn’t envisage a future for shale gas; the government even banned it for a time. However, the energy companies in keeping true to form have obviously spent this time lobbying the UK government hard and the government now seems to be caving under the pressure; not just the pressure from lobbying, but also the pressure from increasingly high energy prices. In the first of the articles I referred to in the title, this certainly appears to be the case:
The bit of news I’m talking about is a BBC story claiming the UK government may indeed be siding with the fracking companies. It says that the coalition will allow shale gas extraction and that it may “continue with checks”. What does that mean? A check could involve some clipboard-wielding government bureaucratic-type person turning up at a drilling site once a month and asking the foreman, “Any earthquakes today?”
“Nope,” replies the foreman.
“Any water pollution?”
“Nope,” replies the foreman again.
“Okay. Thank you very much,” says the government regulator as he puts two ticks on his clipboard and walks away. Checks complete.
Ok, so that may be a little far fetched but what I’m trying to say is that we need incredibly strict regulation on this industry, not ‘checks’. Our banking industry was ‘checked’ and looked what happened there.
Now, the second bit of news, which I’m sure is completely unrelated to the government’s recent decision (yeah, right), is that the UK “may have enough offshore shale gas to catapult it into the top ranks of global producers”. Admittedly this is in reference to offshore shale gas so many of the dangers posed to local water sources may not be an issue here. Nonetheless, the part of the story that got me was that they say we will have to wait for oil to hit $200 a barrel for it to be viable to set up the offshore industry. What!? Is that the government’s plan? Wait for energy prices to be so high that we can’t afford to heat our houses and then at that point – hooray! – the UK can once again be a player on the global energy market. What about renewable energy? What about energy efficiency? If we have the carrot of future energy self-sufficiency dangled in front of us, what incentive is there to strive for a clean energy future?
I just wonder how much of the money that could have been spent on building the UK a clean, renewable energy industry will instead now be spent on getting the offshore shale gas industry on its feet all ready for Dash For Gas part 2 … “this time it’s more expensive”.
Let’s not forget that shale gas is still a fossil fuel; the climate is still warming and we are still on the road to self-destruction. Now though, it seems that with our newly found energy savior we can forget about mitigating climate change because we can all look forward to future powered by gas. Again.
Am I wrong to feel like this? Should securing a future energy supply come above all else? What do you think?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Yet More Anti-Green Clatter Spills Forth From The Daily Mail
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on July 14, 2011
The Daily Mail - that most beloved of English institutions – has released yet another anti-green article. This one seems designed to get Middle England all fired-up at the indignation of having to adjust the UK’s highly-polluting energy supply so as to protect our children from a future of devastating climate change. How awful!
This article – which, incidentally, was front-page news – is getting all flustered because it claims that families will have to fork out an extra £1000 a year as part of their energy bills in order to fund a switch to green energy and nuclear power.
What a load of rubbish. Nowhere will you find anyone in-the-know who agrees with this figure. It is plucked out of thin air simply to allow the Mail readers their daily 5 minutes of irritation at this cruel, cruel world. Even the Daily Telegraph – another paper that dislikes anything remotely green – only claims an increase in bills of £160 over the next 20 years. (Although, the way things are going, I’m expecting that type of increase on my bill next month).
The Mail’s reporter says that the move is intended to cut emissions to meet UK and EU targets. No. The move is intended to shift the UK toward a future where we can enjoy a clean, secure energy supply without polluting the atmosphere or worrying about Russia turning off the gas. Oh, and apparently it’s also intended “to appease the climate lobby”.
So what is this climate lobby then? Are they the ones who agree that climate change is a threat, or are they the energy companies who stand to make large profits from the upshot of this? Are they wind power advocates or supporters of nuclear power? Hmmm: A nice, clear-cut definition; thanks for that.
I’ll admit, I still don’t know where I stand with regards to nuclear power, but I have to say, it’s nice to see nuclear being mentioned in this article alongside the usual culprit, wind power.
So then, the Mail is getting on its high horse because we’ll all have to pay higher bills as we move away from a fossil fuel-based energy supply. I presume they are referring to these same fossil fuels that are responsible for the numerous, unrelenting price hikes we’ve suffered over last few years? Ok; great idea. Let’s just forget about green energy and stick with what we know shall we? That’ll really keep the costs down.
So where did the Daily Mail get this figure of £1000 per year from? Was it Ofgem? The Carbon Trust? The Department of Energy and Climate Change perhaps? No. It was a bank called UniCredit; well there’s some objective journalism for you.
Another of the sources in this article, Dr Benny Peiser, says, “Britain itself could be sitting on a gas gold mine, which would power homes for decades”. The only ‘gold mine’ I imagine he can be talking about is shale gas, and that’s a very bad idea.
Now, I’m not so naïve as to think we can have a lovely new clean energy system and not have to pay for it. But it really gets-my-goat (in case you hadn’t noticed) when papers like the Mail pull figures from sources that are employed simply to make good headlines.
Finally (and strangely) I would like to finish by saying a big thank you to the Daily Mail. Much as you annoy me with your journalistic tripe; without you I think I may struggle for material to use in my blog. Keep up the bad work and long may our relationship continue. Cheers.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Daniel Gilby and npower Renewables (from Renewable UK)
MPs call for inquiry into shale gas drilling after earthquakes
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Shale Gas on June 10, 2011
Seeing as I have previously written a few blogs on this issue, I thought I’d reblog this article on shale gas drilling that appeared in the Independent on Wednesday (but I only got round to reading today).
Ministers were facing growing pressure last night to investigate the safety and environmental impacts of drilling for shale gas after fears that it could have triggered two small earthquakes in Lancashire.
Critics say the released gas can contaminate local water supplies and that seismic activity could be linked with the technique. They also argue that prospecting for shale gas – which is banned in France, as well as New York and Pennsylvania states – leaves a far worse carbon footprint than conventional gas drilling. (Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor, Independent)
If you want to read the rest of the article please click here.
It’s good to see that the opposition to this energy source is mounting and that it is now reaching the ears of those that really matter; namely our MPs.
Yes I’d love humanity to find the Holy Grail of clean, cheap energy supply; but this is not it. Contrary to what others may say.
Dare I say we are actually winning this contest?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Fracking Hell!!!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Shale Gas on June 5, 2011
If you were in Blackpool on Wednesday, you may have felt a little tremor as the North’s very own pleasure city suffered its second earthquake in 2 months.
The cause of these earthquakes has been blamed on the extraction of shale gas, highlighting yet another reason why we shouldn’t be pursuing this new ‘wonder-energy’.
It was reported that the quake, which measured 1.5, hit last Wednesday (June 1st), but didn’t do much more than shake an old couple sat in deck chairs and cause some sticks of rock to wobble off their shelves. The prior shake was on the 2nd of April and chalked up a stronger magnitude of 2.2; still way below those quakes in Japan.
The finger of responsibility has been pointed quite earnestly at a shale gas drilling operation situated a few miles from Blackpool. Cuadrilla, the company extracting the gas obviously denies any link between these earthquakes and its operation to pump millions of gallons water and rock dissolving chemicals underground to break apart the gas-containing rocks.
(I’m sorry, but Cuadrilla? Really? The name sounds like a Japanese movie monster)
Now, in the name of fairness and objective blogging I feel it’s only right to mention that the affected area does sit on the Midlands Microcraton. This a very small fault line running along the UK’s west coast that is prone to suffer small tremors now and again. So it could be argued that the quakes may not actually be related to the drilling. Nonetheless, there are plenty of those in the know – the British Geological Society for instance – who believe the two are connected.
Not that I wish any more earthquakes on the good people of Blackpool, but hopefully this news will add credence to the argument of those of us who oppose this new dash for gas.
Shale gas extraction, which uses a process known as fracking, is no stranger to controversy. By breaking apart, or fracking, the shale rock it is possible to get at the methane (natural gas) trapped inside, seal it up in huge containers and flog it at an exuberant price to the energy companies.
Because it’s a gas with lower carbon emissions than coal or oil, it is seen as being eco-friendly, even though the drilling process is massively destructive. I have already written on this issue so I won’t go into too much detail here. Suffice it to say; shale gas is not the answer to our prayers, and may turn out to be the stuff of nightmares; especially if you live in Blackpool.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of hmproudlove
Shale of the Century
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Shale Gas on May 17, 2011
There are a number of articles that have recently been published extolling the virtues of extracting natural gas from shale rock. Many journalists are hailing this as the next energy revolution, holding shale gas aloft as our energy saviour.
The reasons for all this excitement are quite simple: shale contains ‘natural’ gas; we can get at it cheaply and easily; and – most importantly – there’s bloody loads of the stuff; enough to power Amercia for the next century apparently. Let’s not also forget that shale gas could fundamentally change global geopolitics as the gas and oil-reliant countries of the industrialised world will be able to look inside their own borders for a secure energy supply, reducing their reliance on unbalanced nation states run by madmen. Yes Gaddafi, I’m talking to you.
Ok, now I can’t argue that we don’t need to find a solution to our looming energy crisis, and I also can’t argue that natural gas isn’t the cleanest of the fossil fuels. However, it is still a fossil fuel. No matter how clean it may be, its use will still contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels potentially exacerbating man-made climate change and leading to the end of the world as we know it (kind of).
Another point is that this wonderful clean energy supply will need to be extracted from deep below the Earth.
Now here lies one of the main problems for me. Whereas we have previously extracted our gas from areas such as the middle of the North Sea or the wilderness of Russia, shale rock lies right under our feet – or at least it’s much, much cheaper to get at it from right under our feet. This means that the drilling will not be way out to sea or in the middle of nowhere, but could end up slap bang on your doorstep, where the gas companies will dig, drill, blow up and generally degrade the surface of the Earth until they have what they want. In Pennsylvania USA, for example, there are stories of contaminated water and mine tailings polluting local water supplies (It makes the idea of having a giant wind turbine in your backyard seem positively desirable). This inherent disruption and pollution could last for years and will be spread out over numerous areas as shale gas is not found in concentrated fields like it’s natural gas cousin.
Now I don’t want to rain on shale’s parade (if only I had that much influence) and I can really see the advantages to a new source of energy that can be ‘home-grown’. But if we do embrace this cheap abundant energy supply, then the areas we should be looking at, such as energy efficiency and resource conservation, will be put on the back burner (pardon the pun). Humanity will then carry on stumbling towards its next energy crisis: I refer to when the shale gas runs out and we haven’t made any solid plans to plug the gap. Sound familiar?
Of course I am not here to single-handedly put an end to the future of shale gas extraction. All I want to do is help spread the word: It’s almost certain that in the near future we will see this gas hailed as an environmentally-friendly, clean and cheap solution to our energy woes. Naturally, humans will take this to mean all our problems are solved and we can use our new-found energy with abandon.
Please don’t listen to what they may tell you. Dig in. Stay the course. We are finally starting to see some truly innovative ways of coming to grips with that elusive concept of sustainability. Let’s stay heading the way we are at the moment (all be it slowly); concentrate on tweaking our lives to become greener, look after the prospects of our future generations and forge ahead keeping in mind our regard for Mother Earth.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of pakhnyushchyy
