The news that French utility firm GDF Suez has signed a deal with UK-based Dart Energy to explore Cheshire and the East Midlands for shale gas, shows the direction in which UKIP has been suggesting that UK energy policy takes for some time.
Hydraulic fracturing, as I’m sure you know by now, is the process of extracting gas from shale rock by using pressurized liquids to fracture it and thus release gas and petroleum into a well. It is a welcome development for UK businesses and domestic consumers because it potentially offers lower energy prices, increased energy security, and reduced dependence on imported gas, with a consequent saving on our balance of payments
The shale gas revolution in the US has transformed manufacturing, and has resulted in their gas prices falling to a fraction of those in Europe. There was also the recent report from the British Geological Survey indicating that shale gas resources in the UK are much larger than previously thought. It is probable that there is sufficient accessible gas for decades, perhaps centuries, of current consumption.
The Bowland Shale formation is thought to be three times thicker than the enormous Marcellus field in the USA, suggesting not only larger volumes of gas, but more efficient extraction possibilities. Gas on this scale could well transform the British economy, and make us far less dependant on imports. It all adds up to jobs, growth, and prosperity.
The prize, of a high level of energy independence, local industry and jobs, reduced imports, and lower energy costs, is so important, we cannot afford to ignore it. Energy availability and cost is one of the greatest economic problems we (and the generations succeeding us) face. It would be a huge dereliction of duty not to pursue every practical opportunity for home-grown energy.
There will be doubters. Alarmists from the green movement, Gazprom and others are already at work on this. We will be told about how fracking causes earthquakes which naturally brings images of falling buildings to mind. Fracking indeed causes seismic activity (which is not classified as earthquakes but as micro-tremors) but we are talking about tremors equivalent to the rumble of a truck passing your house.
We will be told that fracking is dangerous to residents and hazardous to health. The US, is perhaps the most litigious society on earth. Had there been any major problems along these lines, there would have been a glut of class actions which would have brought investment to a halt. Nothing like that has happened. One criticism of US fracking companies is the secrecy about the composition of the liquid they use to pump into the well. Although it is largely water and sand, here in the UK that information must be publicly available as a condition of being awarded a license.
Ultimately, there is no power source which can be entirely free of problems but the solution is to manage the technology better, rather than to abandon it. UKIP’s Energy spokesman, Roger Helmer MEP, often uses the following great metaphor “The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. It ended when we developed better technologies“. Hydraulic fracturing is an example of just that sort of development, and the next chapter in the success story of fossil fuels.
Noel Matthews is UKIP’s Cumbria County Chairman, an A-listed UKIP Candidate and 2013 UKIP NEC Candidate. He Tweets at @uknoel
It’s probably worth looking at Matt Ridley’s article that he wrote for the Times some months ago: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-five-myths-about-fracking-%281%29.aspx
Much of the distrust about fracking stems from unregulated and sometimes irresponsible technologies used in the USA. During a recent visit to Texas and New Mexico I took an opportunity to talk to some Mexican migrant oil workers, people at the sharp end, not bosses. Such practices include the use of crude explosives to break up underground rock. It’s unsurprising this causes problems. Provided we take great care to ensure proper regulation and control, there would be few problems in exploiting this domestic based energy. It would buy time to develop alternative energy that is actually viable and affordable.
Hi Tom, I do not doubt that there is opportunity to be had from shale oil and gas, but the point that I try to make is that tapping the reserves isn’t quite as easy as people would like to believe. There is an awful lot of guff talked about shale gas being a panacea. I do like to temper expectations and get people to be realistic about what is required. At the same time I do like to point out that we can run coal burners more cheaply and with less co2 emissions right now.
Here are my questions to all those in favour of fracking: how do you intend to get the gas from the site into storage? The UK’s largest gas storage facility, Rough in the North Sea, has capacity for two weeks only, so where are you proposing we build new storage capacity and how are you going to pay for it? If you want the gas for export where are you going to build the liquefaction facility and how are you going to pay for it, and where are your boats? And crucially, how are you going to pay for the gas plants to convert it into electricity.
Before you answer these questions, consider this the effect of fracked gas from the States (which necessarily bears the environmental risks) has caused a drop in API2 (European) coal prices per tonne from $124 in 2011, $105 in 2012 to $84 now. This 30% odd reduction in fuel prices is as a result of the Americans not having to use its domestic coal and is now exporting it depressing world prices. In other words, we can take advantage of the fracked gas effects right now, without having to drag it up ourselves when we have no infrastructure in place to use it.
Last I looked the benefit of those alleged depressed world prices are not finding their way to either household or business bills
I’m just a normal bloke I have to trust in the powers that be to come up with the answers to the questions you pose.
It sounds like a company could make a lot of money by putting in the infra structure needed,therefore they will come up with the answers.
I’m sure similar questions were asked when the idea first arose about exploration in the North Sea.
We cannot benefit from reduced world coal prices as we are shutting down our coal fired power plants. In some cases the plants are being shut down before they end of their lives because of green levies.