Frack, baby frack

I have posted here before about Fracking and pointed people to the demolition of the lies and stunts,  performed by Josh Fox in his Gasland movie, in the documentary Fracknation.  Some might say that it is unfair to use facts to demolish fantasy but as a grown-up....

Anyway, today, the UK shows the ignorance of the 'debate' on fracking.

By all reliable accounts, Britain is sitting on top of an energy source which is cleaner than most and could provide a much needed economic boost to areas which are not enjoying the growth seen in other parts of the country.

So here's a challenge to Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.  If you really are in favour of fracking and in tapping into this subterranean bounty that nature has provided, then do something about it.

That something has to be to recognise the national interest is best served by developing these resources.  That means that planning approvals, for such developments, cannot be allowed to sit with local authorities but must sit with central government.  Local politicians are ever fearful of NIMBYs and such narrow-minded pressure groups.  Take the responsibility away from them.

That doesn't mean giving it to the Department of Environment and Climate Change.  In my view DECC should no longer exist.  This is a department that, when led by former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, pushed through legislation that directly causes 'fuel poverty' in the UK and leads every year, to the deaths of thousands of people, who simply can't afford the 'Green Taxes' imposed by energy companies.

Responsibility for planning applications, by energy exploration companies, should rest with the Treasury.  They are responsible for securing Britain's economic future, after all.

Wrapping up on fracking, the Treasury should also have responsibility for protecting those companies that are providing for Britain's economic future.  These drilling operations, once approved, cannot be disrupted by Green protestors who, in spite of all the real evidence pointing to the positive economic benefits of fracking and the overwhelmingly safe environment in which drilling and development operations are conducted, simply refuse to accept fracking.  These Greens are people that would have us back, literally, in the Dark Ages !

Developing our natural resources for the benefit of the British people, must proceed.

As previously disclosed, I work in the energy industry.         

Green fracking nonsense

Those readers in Britain will likely be aware of the fire that occurred at Ferrybridge C power station, yesterday.  Thankfully, no injuries to persons were recorded.  Britain's energy policy did though take a hit as yet another power station comes off of the grid.

Back in June 2013, I posted here, http://bit.ly/18jFqAB, on the looming power crisis that was facing Britain.  The shutdown of Ferrybridge C, for the 9-12 months it will take to rebuild, will only make the problem worse and heighten the risk of power outages, during the coming winter.

Is shale gas the answer?  Yes, or at least partly.  Be under no illusion though.  Fracking technology has advanced tremendously in recent years and is proving very beneficial to an otherwise anemic American economy, however this won't solve the UK's energy crisis, overnight.

Nor will it be particularly scenic!  For these very extensive gas reserves to be exploited, we will need to put-up with significant numbers of drilling derricks despoiling our landscape.  Before all of the greenies jump up in protest at the ruination of beautiful views etc., please have a care!  Those monstrosities called wind turbines do exactly the same, on the visual harm front but do far less to actually address our energy needs.

The crisis that Britain faces is perhaps now even more acute.  Russia has been flexing its military muscle in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe and also flexing or at least showing off its energy muscle.  Letting it be known that if Russia is pushed too far, it might have to suspend gas supplies to Western Europe.  Further, the situation with Qatar, the other major supplier of gas to Britain, is not good.  Qatar is 'neck-deep' in funding and supplying terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East and beyond.  As are their near-neighbors but bitter rivals, Iran and Saudi Arabia.  It is easy to foresee a situation where these countries, particularly Qatar, feel the urge to use the gas weapon in furtherance of their extremist agenda.

So a crisis then. 

There are solutions.  They are short, medium and long term but they do require action and unfortunately, such action is not likely to be forthcoming before the outcome of the next UK General Election, in May 2015 (so too late for the coming winter!).  Even then, the solutions will only possibly be implemented if the Conservatives win outright power.  Possibly because pandering to minorities and ignoring the wishes of the majority is a trait that has been seen too often, from the Conservatives in the current coalition.  It is clear though, that Labour and the Lib Dems will not take the necessary actions, as they are so in thrall to the environmentalists within their own ranks and to the lunatics running the European Union asylum.

The solutions? 
Short term.  Cease the shut down programme that is being followed for power stations.  As said in my earlier piece, these shut downs are not driven by economy or utility.  The plants still have a long life of power generation, ahead of them.  The closures and dismantling is purely political and driven to meet idiotic goals set in the lalaland called the European Union.  Gesture politics at its worst!

Reconsider the closure programme for Britain's nuclear facilities.  I am not technically qualified enough to know if these really do have to be shut down or whether, without risk, they can have their lives extended but this does need to be reviewed and the last possible operating life squeezed out of them.

On the subject of nuclear and short term, accelerate the building process and most particularly the planning process.  We cannot allow Hinckley C and other future plants to be subjected to the same level of delay as was seen at Sizewell.

Start exploration drilling and move to development/exploitation drilling for shale gas on a large scale.  This is short to medium term in nature but we need to get going.  Britain's energy future, indeed energy security cannot be held in jeopardy by a minority that oppose drilling on the back of false science.  Just as people have been duped by the so called Global Warming (is that what they are calling it this week?  Or is it Climate Change or something else?) false science but are now seeing through this, so must we expect the government to ignore the nonsense about water table contamination (has only happened in the most extremely rare instance) and earthquakes (really!?) and look for the government to drive through planning applications - so get the Department of Energy and Climate Change to drop all of its drilling delaying tactics - and to support the exploration programmes.  The latter will involve a more robust police presence at these drilling sites.  These protestors simply cannot be allowed to hold-up progress and especially by unlawful acts.  Why is it that a natural resources company requires multiple permits to set-up a drilling location on private land but a bunch of eco-loonies can establish a protest camp on public land without any kind of permission?

Put in place now, long term solutions - that has to mean nuclear!  More power stations must be built and built nearer to urban population centres.  Given how long these take to actually build, once the over-lengthy planning process is passed, we need to start on these sooner rather than later. 

I know that this is 'pie in the sky' wishful thinking but politicians need to have a grown-up conversation with the British people.  The energy facts of life need to be spelled out.  If we don't continue to use existing power stations - conventional gas and coal-fired ones and nuclear - for longer, the lights will go out.  If we don't exploit the natural resources that lie under our soil - the lights will go out.  If we don't accept that 'not in my backyard' cannot continue to be used to oppose necessary energy developments, the lights will go out.  Oh, and it won't just be the lights!  Houses won't be heated, food won't be cooked, baby incubators won't work, air traffic control will shut down, production lines will cease to flow, no more internet, no more cell phones!  You get the picture. 

Going back to the TV pictures from the Ukraine, for a moment, you get a glimpse, when you see such pictures of parts of Eastern Europe, of what life would be like in the green heaven that the eco-loonies wish upon us.  You see people traveling around in horse carts and houses being heated by wood fires.  It might look like some kind of agrarian idyll but I bet that this is not something that most Britons would aspire to or for this to be a future that they would wish upon their children and grand-children.

The 2015 General Election campaign is likely to be dominated by the economy and Britain's relationship with Europe.  Of far greater importance though is the looming energy crisis.  If this isn't addressed, then we will have no economy, to speak of and Europe will be a place most people never get to travel to, anymore!

Advice for visitors to Britain

I wouldn't normally give advice to visitors to Britain.  Preferring instead to let people find there way around and discover the beauties of our lovely and history-filled island. 

However, recent events lead me to warn people of the perils that they may come across. 

The thing is, you may see people in certain rural idylls mimicking ostriches.  Yes, that's right, you will see the rear ends (most will hopefully be clothed) of country dwellers with their heads buried in the sand. 

Many of these people reside in the southern counties of England and enjoy the natural beauty while at the same time commuting into London where they can earn the salaries that afford them and their families, this lifestyle.  These people are truly fortunate because they are able to manage this lifestyle and yet not need any hydro-carbon based energy to do so. 

How do I know this?  Well, it must be so.  It must be that these people travel by foot or pedal power and light and heat their houses using personal solar power panels.  All that lovely country food must get cooked on solar powered stoves or open wood-burning fires.  These fortunate  people must also be blessed with an absence of internet and TV interfering with their lives and those pesky mobile phones don't blight their life, either.  And of course, they never, ever holiday abroad!

This has to be so because otherwise they wouldn't be opposing onshore drilling.  They would understand that the 4x4s that they drive require hydro-carbons, that the electricity that is used comes mostly from gas-fired stations.  They would have read, in a carbon-environment newspaper, that the UK is facing a severe energy crisis and within 2 years the country will face power outages.  They will have heard and read stories about the high energy taxes that are causing the death of old people who simply cannot afford to heat their homes, in the winter.  

Knowing all this though, they oppose exploratory drilling which just might provide solutions to the country's energy needs.  To say nothing of the fiscal benefits which might accrue to the country!

Why do they oppose?  There is some that twaddle on about the drilling rigs being an eyesore.  In this they are supported by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.  All though are content to see wind turbines, despoil the countryside.  These wind turbines will be around for 25 years, unless they burn-up before (as some have already done so).  The drilling rigs will be there for a couple of months, at most,  and then they will be removed to be replaced, if the well is successful, with a low profile pumping system - think nodding donkey - that can be hidden by a stand of conifer hedges.  Don't believe me?  Go look in Lincolnshire around Welton, Nettleham and Keddington and see the extent of despoilation (and when you don't see any, you will know what I mean !).

A further fear relates to 'fracking'.  Understand first that the drilling activity that is currently being opposed, includes zero as in no, fracking activity.  None, nada, zilch!

If hydro-carbons are found, they are likely to be in gas form and will most likely require fracking to facilitate extraction.  So, what about fracking?  Based on the mendacious stories from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and the totally discredited Gasland movie from Josh Fox, you would expect aquifer pollution - the actual fact that these wells drill through and beyond the water-table and then 'case-off' the aquifer zone, isn't allowed to get in the way of the lie that pollution occurs - it doesn't pure and simple.  Don't take my word for it.  Do your own research on the USA's Environmental Protection Agency website.  See how many instances of groundwater pollution they have recorded, during the ongoing shale drilling boom, indeed since 'fracking' first started in the mid 1940s.  Oh and don't be concerned at the talk of secret chemical recipes being pumped into the ground.  Lots of companies have 'secret recipes'.  Ever heard of Coca Cola or KFC's coating mix?

Then, talking of booms we get to seismic activity - that is the accusation that fracking causes earthquakes to occur.  This will cause country churches to topple and houses to develop cracks, just prior to falling over and killing all of the inhabitants and, perish the thought, school roofs to fall and smother children.  Again, do your own research.  Find out how many homes and buildings have been devastated by fracking in America, where thousands of wells have been fracked.  Tip - you won't find any data because there isn't any but Greenpeace and FoE don't want facts or the truth to get in the way of driving us all back to a non-carbon environment where we can sit in un-heated homes and work just down the road from our hovel.

So dear traveler, don't be surprised by any sighting  of the 'lesser brained nimbyist'  These selfish animals, when not burying their head in the sand and chirping their 'not in my back yard' mating call can sometimes be found communing with their local, usually Conservative, MP.  This creature comes from the genus money-grubbing hypocratus and when not concerned with feathering its nest has the uncanny ability to talk out of its rear-end while moving its lips.  These MPs are characterised by self-interest and such short-termism that would make a City trader blush!

So dear traveler, come visit, close your ears to the whining and eco-lies and instead enjoy this green and pleasant land.  Visit those churches that have stood for hundreds of years and marvel at the landscape.  Try also to picture that landscape before parts of it were ruined by loony eco-policies that heavily subsidise the installation of wind turbines. 

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)

Overhyped?

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'.

Energy - Make your mind up

What do you want?  Access to energy sources that provide a cheap (cash terms) solution such as natural gas and ultimately nuclear power or a return to some kind of green Utopia, where we all work within two miles of where we live, plough the fields and enjoy subsistence farming?  If you are a 'Green' you don't need to respond, I am sure I know your answer!

There is much debate about 'fracking' and the seismic and possible water-table contamination effects of this.  I must declare an interest as I work for an oilfield services company, though not on the technical side.  The seismic activity is very minor if and when it occurs.  Since the drill bore is lined with a cement casing, the possibility of fracking chemicals leaking into the water table are somewhere between zero and non-existent.  Those are facts but don't let that stop you from disputing them!

Consider the 'green' energy alternatives.

Wind Power?  I read a piece once, which concluded that the energy required to build and install a wind turbine would take 15-20 years at nominal turbine capacity, to be generated.  So 15 to 20 years just to stand still.  Consider also, that for all wind power capacity, standby generating capacity must be kept in place and kept running for when the wind reduces.

Solar Power?  I looked into this earlier in the year, before the changes in FiT came into place and the generating capacity of my roof, which is for a large 4 bedroom house, wouldn't be sufficient for my 4 person family.  So, fill the fields with solar panel arrays?  That might boost capacity at the expense of agriculture!?!?  Again though, we would need standby capacity to supplement those non-sunny hours.

Wave Power?  Can't see this being viable and strongly suspect that the transmission loss would make this unsustainable over distances.

Nuclear Power? Seems to me that this is where we will end-up, though the journey there is going to be difficult and made even more so by spineless politicians who know the answer but are in thrall to the media and don't want to risk any public backlash by telling people the truth.

Natural Gas?  Must be part of the shortish term answer.  Gas is very low-priced in the US because they use fracking to get at the gas and can thereby reduce their dependence on foreign sources of energy.  People in Ukraine have seen what happens when they try to assert themselves towards a big supplier (Russia).  How long before Europe kowtows?

In truth, all of these energy sources can play a part in meeting our needs but you are deluding yourself if you think there is a 'silver bullet' out there which means we wouldn't have to use natural gas and nuclear power.

Incidentally, why are we spending vast amounts of money which we don't have) on CERN and the Large Hadron Collider?  Why don't these scientists devote their time and efforts to finding sustainable sources of energy (preferably clean)?  Surely that is more important than the Higgs Boson?