Alan Stainer

Tech head through and through.

If you are a resident of the UK, then you might want to sign this

by

If you are a resident of the UK, then you might want to sign this

This petition, with enough signatures, will help in the fight against fracking in Lancashire. With any luck the government may even overturn the decision to overrule the local county council.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168675

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168675

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Mac Baird says

    There is no upside to fracking beyond wealth for the Fossil Energy Industrial Complex. The downside is contamination of water needed for drinking and agriculture (6 barrels of water for each barrel of oil), disposal of that contaminated water and the earthquakes triggered by waste injection wells and more Climate Change from the release of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

  4. Nicholas Berry says

    Mac Baird​​ Precisely. Upsides/downsides, are inconclusive either way, as far as I’ve been able to determine, thus far. Certainly nothing that warranted a moratorium which, as far as I am aware, has been lifted anyway.

    And certainly, the sparse practical progress to date, UK wise with UK regulations, reveals equally sparse evidence to determine whether the whole project is viable or inviable, for all contested reasons. Other than to confirm that adequate measures are already in place to address one contested reason at least.

    In this respect, petititions wholly against, at this stage in time, are not really an astute or productive move.

  5. Mac Baird says

    Nicholas Berry

    Ultimately, the economics of Fracking will determine its viability as profit and liability are weighed. On the profit side, the production cost is 5 to 7 times higher than Conventional Oil production, resulting in a breakeven price range of $65 to $75 per barrel, well above the current price. On the liability side, several US communities have had their water table irreparably contaminated with the toxic waste. Now the question becomes are you willing to risk your backyard for an energy source that is very limited and unnecessary?

  8. Nicholas Berry says

    Thanks for those two links Mac Baird. Your reaction is entirely predictable, as is Alan’s +1’s, because they support both your views.

    For that reason, I will definitely have a read of them.

    Most people will naturally have a leaning in a particular direction and will (if they have a mind to) Google the issue, as you suggested above. But they will invariably tend to gravitate towards the headings that support their leaning, read the article and largely dismiss all else. As such, they become more and more unshakable in their views.

    That’s human nature and is why, if I came back with credible links that ran contrary to yours (which wouldn’t be difficult), it is highly unlikely that anybody here will acknowledge them positively, if at all.

    I would add that I have no intention of doing so, because this thread would end up longer than an ‘exploratory well’, with conflicting arguments from both sides (that’s likely myself against everyone else, in this case).

    At risk of repeating myself, there is nothing, as far as I can see thus far, which tells me that either side has the argument wrapped up, certainly from a UK operations point of view. Because of (some may say misplaced) resistance, the UK industry has been allowed very little progress to prove itself one way or the other.

    In contrast, wind farms, which bizarrely have never met with quite as much zeal, have been allowed to proliferate. Yet, the jury is still out as to whether their effectiveness outweighs the impact on those living close by, as well as wildlife, the true cost, the overall carbon footprint, not to mention (in the eyes of many), the dis-figuration of our rural landscape.

    Nevertheless, I do accept the establishment view, that we in the UK require a varied mix of  resources to ensure our long term energy needs are reliably met, with a lower reliance on imports and, hopefully, reduced negative environmental consequences.

    And it is for this reason, I for one, will not be signing the petition.

  9. Nicholas Berry says

    Having now read them, the two articles linked to above, aren’t really anything to do with UK fracking, or indeed fracking at all. One concerns itself with the continuing payment of dividends, against falling profits of US based oil company majors, and the other, with falling energy prices.

    On the latter, if the economics of return against investment, look to be unpalatable for the likes of Cuadrilla, UK Methane, Eden Energy and Coastal Oil and Gas Ltd, then exploration and possible production will likely never go ahead anyway. Which rather renders any petition academic. My impression is that those companies are looking at the long term. Something others should also be doing!

    Of course the economic argument can be equally applied to the UK solar panel industry (one of the much vaunted renewables), which has only really blossomed because of huge subsidies from the UK taxpayer. A fact proven in its sudden and catastrophic shrinkage, now that those subsidies have been scaled down or withdrawn altogether.

    The article below is far more pertinent to the fracking industry over here, which also draws on the USA experience:

    https://fullfact.org/economy/full-factsheet-fracking/%EF%BB%BF

    fullfact.org – Full Factsheet: Fracking

  10. Mac Baird says

    Nicholas Berry

    If fracking is not expected to be profitable, it will not happen. The economic breakeven for fracking occurs when the price of oil exceeds $65 to $75 due to production costs that are 5 to 7 times higher than conventional oil. First, for startup loans, the drilling company has to prove a higher probability of profit to the banks than they did when oil was at $100. Virtually, all the fracking drillers in the US filed for bankruptcy when their oversupply crashed the market in 2014 and 2015. Second, they have to balance price within a very narrow range of $75 and demand destruction which starts around $90. In the US for example, for every $0.10 gasoline rises at the pump, a $billion is removed from the economy that would have otherwise been available to spend on other stuff. As an economy declines, so does demand and the price of oil. Third, all the conventional oil producers on the planet know this and will continue to manipulate supply to protect their market share. That means keeping oil price at the fracking breakeven or lower until they have sold the last barrel of cheaper conventional oil in their fields, potentially a few decades in the future. Forth, the UK economy is projected to enter an economic recession as the process of BREXIT unfolds over the coming years. The thing the Renewable Energy Industry has going for it is the Global Movement away from Fossil Fuels entirely, which will continue to erode petroleum demand, as the G-20 nations have already lowered their demand for oil by 10 million bpd over the past decade and accelerating.

  11. Nicholas Berry says

    Mac Baird​​​ All that aside, much of which is speculation, renewables, whilst an important part of the mix, are not enough to sustain the UK’s energy needs, either now, or in the foreseeable future.

    Additionally, my understanding is that renewables produce electricity. Not gas. The UK’s reliance on imported gas has risen considerably over just the last decade and many, if not most, of the UK’s households rely on gas for heating and cooking. Most certainly the former.

    Consequently, 20-30 years worth of estimated ‘home grown’ fuel resources (which in the case of UK fracking, is mainly gas), overshadows any argument of economics that may or may not be applicable to the UK, particularly when it reduces our current reliance on imports.

    In any event:

    http://www.ukoog.org.uk/economy/costs

  12. Alan Stainer says

    Nicholas Berry renewables can produce gas as well, although there would need to be a considerable increase in production. An interesting development is the possibility of using grass cuttings to produce gas, which would remove the need for using energy crops.

  13. Mac Baird says

    Nicholas Berry

    If you think your nation can wait 2 or 3 decades to eliminate your dependence on the very limited Fossil Carbon Energy reserves remaining on the planet, your children are going very disappointed in your generation. Your economy and climate will not survive a delay of that length. Are you willing to risk the nation’s potable water supply for 2 or 3 decades of oil and gas as has already occurred around fracking sites in the US, much less the earthquakes generated by the toxic waste water injection wells? Bottom line, you cannot afford to frack below economic breakeven or above economic demand destruction, and the conventional oil producers are not going to willingly surrender their market share for at least a couple decades. You might be better advised to follow the lead of the US Navy in converting seawater directly to hydrocarbon fuels or developing your biofuel industry in addition to solar and wind (Google “Great Green Fleet”).

  14. Mac Baird says

    I would add that the annual depletion rate of a fracked well is 30%+, requiring a replacement well every 3 miles every 3 years to sustain production. There is also the requirement for an equal number of toxic waste water injection wells.

  16. Nicholas Berry says

    Alan Stainer​​​ All that is good, nobody can deny. They are, or more likely will be, all part of the mix which, maybe (hopefully) one day, will replace the need for dwindling natural gas supplies offshore, shale gas from inshore, or imports from outside the UK. In the meantime, we are going to have to rely on at least one of these options.

    Mac Baird​​​ The only way our children are going to be disappointed, is if we, as a human race, don’t develop renewables that one day replace our reliance on fossil fuels. At long last, it seems that we have finally woken up to the fact that these are finite and enormous strides are now being taken in renewables, as Alan Stainer​​​ has pointed out.

    However, currently we still have a requirement for resources that will tide us over in the meantime. As the report I linked to above says:

    Regarding the point about replacement wells:

    “While further testing is required, at this stage, it appears that in certain parts of the UK, the shale is significantly thicker than in the US. What this could mean is that a far greater amount of natural gas can be extracted at each well site.”

    On fears of safety and the environment:

    “In addition to the immature supply chain there is also a bigger environmental and regulatory cost of doing business in the UK, with longer lead times particularly around planning making scheduling difficult.”

    In short, the situation in the UK is not the same as the USA. It’s simply not prudent to make direct comparisons. But this extract from an article in Popular Mechanics does scotch the argument regarding water usage:

    “Hydrogeologist David Yoxtheimer of Penn State’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research gives the withdrawals more context: Of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd.”

    Similarly, other reports point out that of the 0.8% of fracking liquid, that isn’t around 99.2% pure water, much if not all the chemicals used are already in everyday products, including those we eat.

    What this all comes back to, is what I pointed out at the beginning of this thread. That the arguments from either side, are by no means conclusive and we can go on and on with you putting forward an argument and me countering it with another view or set of statistics. I’ve seen it before, going on and on, almost forever, in other comment threads.

    At the end of the day, none of us are in control of any decision making, so it’s a largely fruitless exersise. Apart that is, from the additional knowledge gleaned, from my perspective at least, it just reinforces my original decision to not sign any petitions, of the above nature. That is further confirmed by your apparent inaccuracy of no gas or oil field being discovered in the last 40+ years:

    http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/press/press-releases/bp-announces-latest-gas-discovery-in-egypts-east-mediterranean.html

    I’m bowing out of this debate, but thank you for the conversation.

  17. Mac Baird says

    Sadly, Nicholas departed the discussion because there are some inaccuracies in his last post. The gas discovery in the Mediterranean is “deep ocean” and classified as “Unconventional” vice “Conventional”. A single deep ocean drilling rig costs 10,000 times more to build and operate than an equivalent conventional land rig. Again, the breakeven production cost for unconventional drilling is 5 to 7 times higher than conventional drilling. As the ratio of unconventional production rises relative to conventional production, the global economy will ultimately slip into recession starting with the poorest nations first that can least afford energy costing 5 to 7 times higher than what they are forced to pay today.

    Regarding the toxicity of fracking waste water, the following 2016 Yale University study found that while they lacked definitive information on the toxicity of the majority of the chemicals, the team members analyzed 240 substances and concluded that 157 of them — chemicals such as arsenic, benzene, cadmium, lead, formaldehyde, chlorine, and mercury — were associated with either developmental or reproductive toxicity. Of these, 67 chemicals were of particular concern because they had an existing federal health-based standard or guideline, said the scientists, adding that data on whether levels of chemicals exceeded the guidelines were too limited to assess. The formulation of fracking fluids are still protected under Copyright Law in the US. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160106220433.htm

  19. Kris Steel says

    I Will till You All this I would for Halliburton Oil Field Services out of Texas We Face All over every where and You knew it… Not only could You smell it from the Earth You Could actually set You Tap Water on Fire….. If You have Oil smells Coming from You tap Water and Can Set your Tap water Coming Out of the Faucet On Fire and Not able to Drink it LOL there’s A Big Problem. …..

  20. Nicholas Berry says

    As much as would rather stick to my retirement from this thread, I cannot stand by and allow someone to correct me (which I’m quite happy for if justified) on apparent inacuracies and, in doing so, by making monumental blunders themselves.

    The recent BP oil find I referred to, is in just 25 metres of water which, in itself, doesn’t make it Unconventional. Neither is it deep ocean. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For deep water is classified as anything over 1,000 metres depth.

    http://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deepocean/

    Unconventional drilling is when it has to divert from vertical to horizontal, as is the case with fracking. There is nothing, as far as I can see, that marks out the BP find as Unconventional. Even if it is, there are other recent finds that are Conventional:

    ”Having monitored 400 total exploration wells drilled last year, Kapadia’s rough estimate is that the industry discovered 20 billion barrels of conventional oil (and equivalent natural gas) last year, against global consumption of 50 billion barrels worth.”

    That was in 2013, just three years ago:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/01/08/the-10-biggest-oil-and-gas-discoveries-of-2013/#497b19d77f4b

    Break even costs etc, are entirely irrelevant to the post above, which is, essentially, to attempt to force the cessation of any fracking activities at all in the UK.

    As for the toxic chemicals referred to, once again it’s citing information regarding fracking operations in the USA. The report, bordering on alarmist as it is in its presentation, far from instigating a ban on fracking, should be used to instigate improved safety within the industry. But that is a matter for the USA.

    As I have already pointed out (or rather the UKOOG website has) USA regulations are not the same as the UK. That is not to say, they are any more or less stringent, but anyone who has had experience with the UK Health and Safety Executive, will testify that they most definitely have teeth.

    A close friend of ours, has spent his entire working life employed by a regional water authority, rising from the tools, to regional manager, in between which, he had a spell on environmental and ‘green’ responsibilities. Listening to him, over the last two decades, makes it abundantly clear, just how stringent are the regulations which monitor our water standards and how any breaches are dealt with extremely robustly. The fact that there is the very rare breach, doesn’t mean we have to ban drinking water, or create a petition to attempt to do so.

    Recently, the TV program Countryfile ran an article on fracking, where it says:

    ”…the Infrastructure Act 2015 was recently passed, dealing with various aspects of fracking. The definition of hydraulic fracturing was altered to accommodate for more fluid per stage but with an increased monitoring of air, soil and groundwater around fracking sites.”

    http://www.countryfile.com/explore-countryside/people/fracking-uk-%E2%80%93-facts-so-far

    As far back as 2012, The Guardian newspaper (renowned for championing the environment and renewables) published a fairly lengthy article on the subject of fracking and, to their credit, put the views of the experts, as well as concerned locals, across:

    ”Tony Grayling, head of climate change at the EA (Environment Agency), who believes the regulatory system in the UK is “significantly more robust” than in the US.” Pretty well what I’ve been saying.

    Nigel Smith, of the British Geological Survey, was also consulted:

    ”What about pollution concerns? Smith thinks US pollution is not relevant. “It’s a bit like saying BP had a problem [with oil pollution] in the Gulf of Mexico but they haven’t had any problems at Wytch Farm, which is a very sensitive area in southern England,” he says.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/17/whats-the-truth-about-fracking

  21. Mac Baird says

    Nicholas is correct. I was unaware of this week old publication in http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Rebirth-Of-Egypts-Oil-And-Gas-Sector.html If the projections pan out, this is a significant new source of conventional oil. The onshore cost is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $10/barrel. The offshore cost, while not as expensive as deep ocean, will be somewhat higher than onshore production due to the the additional infrastructure required and the Jack-up Rigs. Obviously, this find should meet Egypt’s domestic needs, but if Egypt plans to enter the export market, they will have to compete for market share. Either way, the result is more downside pressure on global oil and gas price and more bad news for the economics of fracking. I would supplement Nicholas’ description of fracking to include the additional drilling requirement for toxic waste water injection and wish the UK well in permanently keeping it out of your domestic water supply. Hopefully, you won’t be heating your homes by lighting your taps with leakage along the extraction pipe. The horizontal aspect of fracking only goes out about a mile in various directions, resulting in an area about two miles in diameter that is fracked. That is why the individual well depletion rate is 30%+ and why numerous wells are required for significant production. When/if the UK decides to implement fracking technology, hopefully the regulatory oversight will be sufficient to avoid the severe damage experienced at several US locations, as mentioned by Kris Steel in the preceding post. We are still feeling the impact of BP’s other mistakes here on the Florida Gulf Coast, and now we have a new movie at the box office to remind us.