Saturday, December 1, 2012

More Greenpeace lies and BBC complicity

The BBC is reporting a story from The Independent that up to 60% of the UK could be subjected to fracking operations for shale gas.

The BBC quotes:
The Energy department  spokesman said: "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted.
"It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense.

John Sauven of Greenpeace is quoted as follows:
"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year."

The government is currently considering a report by an independent panel of experts published in April on the future of fracking in the UK.
The report recommended fracking should continue, but under stricter regulations.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace has said its own analysis shows the extent of potential shale sites is widespread.
Greenpeace Executive director John Sauven said: "Two thirds of England, including large swathes of countryside, is now under active consideration for a risky, polluting, expensive form of fossil fuel extraction.
"The potential for shale gas to bring down bills is overhyped, while experts agree local opposition is a serious threat to the industry's viability. (my italics)

The only meaningful study of the economic effects of fracking and shale gas production requires a review of what is occurring in the World's largest energy user, the USA.  

Consider these statistics from the US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (which boasts of providing Independent Statistics and Analysis).

Price per Thousand Cubic Feet of Natural Gas
February 2003   $7.98
July 2008    $ 15.64
September 2012  $8.17

I don't know about you but a reduction of more than 47% doesn't look like 'overhyped' to me.

Between January 2010 and September 2012, the US increased its daily production of Shale gas from 11 billion cubic feet to around 26 billion feet.  This dramatic increase is only made possible by fracking - be very clear on this - and it is leading the US to lower energy prices and greater energy independence.

These facts are very easily available on the US Department of Energy site.  We can expect that Greenpeace won't check things out and they certainly have no interest or requirement to present a balanced story.  The BBC though, does.

Simple thing is, Greenpeace are not being truthful about the positive economic consequences of shale gas because they are obsessed with a renewables- only policy.   They also don't care that the UK energy users are suffering more and more fuel poverty because of these ridiculous and excessive 'green taxes'.


  1. Perhaps Greenpeace should focus on how a mass deployment of shale gas exploitation might change the UK country side? Trains of fracking trucks, delivering nasty chemicals, driving through our towns and villages. Drilling rigs sprouting up everywhere. Chemical pits used to hold the contaminated drilling waste. Rivers running dry as water is diverted to rig sites. Sleepy towns invaded by drilling field personnel and the service industries that feed off young men with lots of cash in the pockets.

    Shale exploitation has less impact in the US because the shale plays are in low density areas. And many land owners have welcomed oil companies because they have become millioniaires overnight as they own the mineral rights. In the UK, I believe the state owns the mineral rights. I believe the US has been able to exploit share on a much greater scale than the UK could so we can't expect a similar drop in gas price.

    Sure, we like the prospect of lower gas prices but who wants a rig and chemical pit at the bottom of their garden.

    It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

    1. There's no way that they will do that. Greenpeace and their allies in the climate scam are already despoiling the countryside with their inefficient and ineffective and very ugly windmills. They wouldn't want to draw a parallel between isolated and yes, possibly ugly drilling derricks alongside concentrated windfarms.

      The scaremongering about chemicals and dry rivers simply doesn't work. The energy industry is one of the most highly regulated everywhere and does anyone think that some local 'greenie' would allow any oil&gas company to so much as pour a cup of coffee down the drain without screaming 'polluter' and the oil & gas companies, know this and they operate stringent HS&E policies and impose these on all of their contractors.

      I too believe that the UK Government owns the mineral rights and they can license these as well as tax the proceeds and remember, shale gas is non-polluting!

      Good talk again.