By Chris Nelder
Posting in Energy
Energy analyst Chris Nelder reports from a foreign country deep in the throes of shale gas fever.
The country has "potentially massive" shale gas resources, enough to "heat all homes for 100 years!"
No, wait! Make that 1,500 years!
This development is "undoubtedly a game-changer" that will transform the energy industry and could create 30,000 jobs, bestowing greater energy security. The "stumbling blocks are political," notes one conservative elected official. Other senior conservatives have promoted the potential to reduce energy bills and cut the country's dependence on imports.
“Natural gas from shale has the potential to transform the [...] energy market and boost the economy, create thousands of jobs, generate significant tax revenues and reduce our reliance on imported gas,” declared the CEO of a major gas company.
"Shale gas is part of the future, and we will make it happen," swore the nation's top economic official as he delivered the 2013 budget.
No, it's not the United States. It's our cousin across the pond: the United Kingdom (UK).
For the past two weeks I've been in the UK, where the talk about shale gas has been all the rage since the ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) was lifted by the government in December. The ban was imposed in 2011, after the fracking of Britain's first shale gas well was blamed for two small earthquakes and gas contamination of groundwater.
More than 500 articles have been published about UK shale gas this year, according to my quick Google search.
So it must be a really big deal, right? With massive proved reserves, and all that stuff?
So far, only two exploratory wells have been drilled, both by Cuadrilla Resources in the Bowland shale gas play, which is in the Lancashire area in UK's northwest. The first well, in Preese Hall, Weeton, was fracked. The second, in Grange Hill, Singleton, was drilled but not fracked.
Neither well is in production yet.
Based on the Preese Hall well, Cuadrilla Resources estimates that the play could contain 200 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas, with a market value of £136 billion. At least, those were the numbers blared in the headlines.
A second company, Island Gas (IGas), plans to begin drilling for shale gas in the UK this summer at two sites: Irlam in Greater Manchester and Ellesmere Port in Cheshire. If its exploratory wells find useful quantities of gas, it hopes to begin fracking the wells next year.
The latest rash of gushing headlines stemmed from the February leak of a new estimate from the British Geological Survey (BGS, the UK's equivalent of the U.S. Geological Survey), which reportedly increases the UK's total shale gas resources to between 1,300 and 1,700 trillion cubic feet (tcf). Again, that information was leaked, and the actual new BGS assessment has not yet been released. According to an April 28 report in the Financial Times, "the energy department is understood to have asked it [BGS] to redo its calculations, a process that is taking several months. A final report is still a few weeks away and could see a downward revision to the estimates."
A nicely detailed and transparent piece of work by Damian Kahya, a former BBC energy reporter now writing for Greenpeace, is the only post I found that actually attempted to do the math and sort out fact from wild speculation on UK shale gas.
Kahya cites work by The Carbon Brief, which determined that The Times' "1,500 years of gas" claim stemmed from multiplying the 26.4 million UK households by 47,000 cubic feet (the average annual gas consumption of a UK home), then dividing that into 1,800 tcf (above the high end of the reported BGS estimate).
But, as Kahya points out, such simple math assumes that all of the gas is economically recoverable, when it isn't. The Times article even mentioned that only 16 percent to 20 percent of the resource might be recoverable, so the disconnect between the article and its headline is curious. If 20 percent of 1,700 tcf were recoverable, Kahya finds that this would amount to a 119-year supply. But other estimates Kahya cites suggest that only 20-40 tcf might actually be recoverable, which would only be good for "a decade or two." Cuadrilla's CEO reckons that it can only extract about 10 percent, or 20 tcf, of the 200 tcf gas-in-place it estimates for the Bowland shale.
Even the 200 tcf estimate is undoubtedly speculative. As BGS stated in its October 25 2012 remarks to the UK Parliament, Cuadrilla "drilled two wells in 2010-11 (Preese Hall and Grange Hill) from which (we presume) the company derived gas content values for shale and figures for the thickness of shales. We assume that they extrapolated these values over their 1,200 square kilometres licence area."
Anyone possessing a passing familiarity with how shale gas resources are estimated knows that gas shales are not uniformly prospective; they typically have highly productive "sweet spots," as well as large areas that are not commercially viable, and the sweet spots are usually found and drilled first. If Cuadrilla has applied data from just two wells uniformly to an entire area that has not yet been drilled, its estimate should be taken as highly uncertain.
In response to my query, Cuadrilla's media representatives confirmed that its £136 billion valuation for the gas in the Bowland shale applied to the 20 tcf it believes is recoverable, not to the 200 tcf of gas-in-place. I verified that at the current UK spot price of £0.6894 per therm, 20 tcf would have a market value of £137.88 billion.
The mere fact that more than 500 articles have been published about UK shale gas this year, repeating Cuadrilla's resource estimate without any independent verification, when only two wells have been drilled in the entire country, of which only one has been fracked, before any commercial production of the wells has commenced, should tell us something.
The UK has a serious case of fracking envy.
As the current BGS report on UK shale gas prospectivity clearly notes: "The UK shale gas industry is in its infancy, and ahead of production testing there are no reliable indicators of potential productivity... For that reason, resource estimates can only be made by analogy with producing shale gas plays in America, although again ahead of drilling, hydraulic fracturing and flow testing these analogies may ultimately prove to be invalid," and "[t]here are no known studies focused on the gas content of UK shales."
Regarding its 5.3 tcf reserve figure for British shale in that report (before the recently leaked higher estimate), the BGS noted in its October 2012 remarks to Parliament: "No UK drilling had taken place at the time of this estimate, and so the BGS figures were necessarily defined as tentative. Unfortunately commentators have subsequently quoted the estimates without reference to their tentative nature." [Emphasis mine.]
That a headline asserting "Britain has shale gas for 1,500 years" could even be printed on the basis of so little information betrays either breathtaking ignorance, or a desperate desire to tell an optimistic story to a populace that is still in the grips of economic malaise and really struggling to pay its gas bills.
I'll be charitable and assume it's the latter.
The fact that the BGS report isn't even released yet would halt a responsible press in its tracks. And that fact that the energy department has asked BGS to redo its calculations is, at the very least, odd.
It is, of course, all sadly reminiscent of the hyperventilating press around U.S. shale gas in recent years, which has died down a bit since the growth trajectory of U.S. gas production appears to have stalled in January 2012. As I explained last October, the "gold rush" phase is over for U.S. shale gas. But it's only beginning in the UK, albeit on the basis of far less hard evidence. It was straightforward enough in late 2011 to debunk the claim that the U.S. has 100 years of gas; at this point, there isn't even enough information about UK gas estimates to begin such a debunking.
Speculating about the number of jobs that British shale gas might create and the tax revenues it might generate before it has even begun commercial production, let alone calling it a "game changer," is simply absurd.
Even if significant resources are proved out and the wells are able to achieve respectable production rates, there is no guarantee that the UK can replicate the U.S. shale gas success. Public opposition to fracking is already extraordinarily well-organized in the UK, partly because many of the wells would have to be drilled in close proximity to homes, agricultural operations and business. The sparsely populated wilds of North Dakota simply don't exist in this country, which has been thoroughly occupied and well-used for many centuries. Drilling tens of thousands of shale gas wells in the UK will be an entirely different challenge than it is in the United States. So yes, there is certainly an element of politics in it, but the stumbling blocks aren't just political. It remains to be proved just how much gas can be produced, even if there were no political stumbling blocks.
The UK is hugely dependent on natural gas. Its main supply in the North Sea has long been in decline. It has suffered Russia's export gamesmanship in the dead of winter. It pays nearly two-and-a-half times the price that the U.S. does for gas. Consumers struggle to pay their gas bills. And the public coffers could really use a fresh tax revenue boost from natural resources. I understand all that, and I sympathize with it.
But seriously, UK media and politicians need to chill out until they actually know something about how much gas they've got and how much of it can be produced.
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne should not be counting these chickens until they've hatched, no matter how strong his resolve is to support the gas industry. Hyperbolic speculation at this point can only harm the progress of the UK's renewables industry, which has the advantage of being proven and real, and which is on its way to being a cheaper way to generate grid power than the fossil-fueled alternatives by the end of this decade.
(Photo Credit: Chris Nelder)
May 14, 2013
Say what you want, but if Britain starts to frack, it is merely making a choice for fuel now, over water later.
All of this isn't a clandestine giveaway to energy companies again? We need a new economy and to value work again. And sustainable, renewable energy sources. And to value relationships... I could go into lots of detail but, either way, what will really change, long-term?
Fever indicates an underlying sickness, and that is the case here. It's time for humans to stop the burning of fuels, which kills 10,000 people a day according to the UN. And at least 100,000 new folks each day are made sick. Great business if you can get in on the "ground" floor to suck the toxic stuff out of the earth, put it into peoples lungs and organs, and make people think there are no alternatives. Then provide for a cancer clinic on every corner for the collateral damage. Win-win for big business, and it all increases the revered GNP. The Keshe Foundation has discovered better alternatives...if we have the guts and vision to implement them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrN99RELqwo
Margaret Thatcher found so much gas and oil in the Malvinas islands (that was the main reason for her to do the impossible to keep them in British hands, since she had private interests in those resources --unfortunately nobody leaves forever) that it seems nonsensical all that fuss in Britain, when they can keep everything clean and tidy there while fracking so far away from home to avoid pollution. Whatever happened to that old project?
What no one seems to notice is what shale gas indicates. Natural gas is not a fossil fuel, it is a mineral from deep within the Earth. It seems to be ubiquitous. Chances are, we will find a way to tap the inner reservoirs of gas and find ourselves with tens of thousands of years of natural gas reserves. And please, enough of the global warmism. One particle out of ten thousand (that's one penny out of a hundred dollars in pennies) is 'man-generated' CO2. Try to imagine that one particle imparting significant energy to the other 9,999 particles around it. Basic physics: it is impossible. Quoting global warmism as science just reveals the blatherer as scientifically illiterate. It is IMMORAL to try to foist high cost energy on the developing world solely to satisfy an erroneous intellectual conceit. Our children and grandchildren will have cheaper hydrocarbon energy and richer lives. Please help them do so. And as a last statement, what this article suggest is that shale gas reserves will probably be dozens of times what has been tentatively claimed, since they have barely started measuring those reserves. Natural gas exploration has slowed down in the USA because the huge success of shale drilling has depressed the price. There are companies where I live in Oklahoma, who have switched from gas exploration back to oil because of the price situation. And we have been fracking in Oklahoma for at least half a century with no problems. Have a nice day.
Features David Hughes' "Drill Baby Drill" and Deborah Rogers' "Shale & Wall Street: Was the Decline in Natural Gas Prices Orchestrated?" => https://sites.google.com/site/frackingireland/fracking---a-boom-and-bust
Chris is a very talented writer - you are never quite sure exactly what he is saying but a subliminal message is left to germinate. In this article - and many others Chris leaves the message that this whole shale gas thing is a scam - the supply isn't there and it is all smoke and mirrors. So in this case commercial hype from a company that is naively picked up by the British press (like when have they ever been wrong?!) is evidence that the whole shale resource is suspect. Of course we don't know what the scale of the shale resource is yet - that remains to be seen. But at this pint what we do know is that it appears to be a significant resource that should be considered in the UK resource mix. Another subliminal message is Chris' constant refrain - well we have topped out production - the shale gale is over - here we go down the slippery slope of production declines. And some little slice of data is used to prove his point. But the facts show otherwise. In 2006 production was below 55 BCf/day and projected to decline below 50 BCF/day by 2010 despite gas prices in the $8 to $10 range. Where are we now? Based on US EIA data 2009 57 BCF/d, 2010 ~ 58 BCF/d, 2011 ~ 62 BCF/d, 2012 ~ 65 BCF/d and 2013 so far ~ 66 BCF/d. All of this increase in a period of declining gas prices. Not what one would expect. But Chris will point to production in Dec 2012 at 66.5 BCF/d as his evidence of the end of shale as we know it. A master of the disingenuous and misleading is Chris. And as for those - "the end is nigh - fracking will kill us all" - if your research is based on Gasland and professor Matt Damon how can anyone take you seriously. There is the potential for environmental damage if a well is not properly drilled. But based on the number of wells drilled (tens of thousands) do a handful of incidents mean that you shut down the industry? If so close all airports and freeways immediately - people actually die there. BTW Chris - where did your Canadian friend who has been predicting rapid declines in production for the past five years end up. Since he started his mindless rant eight potential LNG projects in British Columbia are under evaluation and many $ billions spent by companies buying reserves that are stranded because North America is awash in gas. Think your buddy missed the call there. If production is down in Canada it is simply because prices are too low and they can't compete with US shale. It doesn't mean the gas isn't there. But perhaps he is crying in his beer - the Green Tea Party (my snappy name for fundamentalist enviro fanatics ) ended up splitting the vote as the socialist "NDP" party wasn't green enough for them - so that the "free enterprise" party got in. Another example of how the unintended consequences of extreme positions result in the opposite outcome they expected.
Fracking threatens the water supply of over 100 million Americans. It is a pending disaster that will make the recent Gulf spill look like a hiccup. It could ruin the ground water across large swaths of America - a disaster that would be permanent on a human scale. This is not an overstatement, and current policy couldn't possibly be more shortsighted. Clean fresh water, not natural gas, will be the commodity of the 21st century. It's probably the only thing upon which all futurists agree. The frackers claim that their wells are much deeper than the aquifer, but all it takes is a problem with the casing going down into the well, or a problem with their catchment pond, their waste disposal methods, etc. for their poisons and natural gas to leach into the water table. They can't promise that it won't happen, and it's almost guaranteed that it will, over and over again, as it already has happened many times. This issue should be at the top of everyone's list! See the documentary Gasland, and stop the gas companies before it's too late!
You have to hand it to the frackers in the UK they are currently doing a very good lobbying job - hence the hysterical Times article. Hundreds of licences have now been granted but the impression remains that this is all going to happen in Lancashire and the north west. If fracking wells really get going it is going to be interesting to see the reaction the next time there is a hose pipe ban. Tempting local communities with bribes may not be enough. The real debate is yet to happen. Good article, by the way. Fracking needs to be discussed sensibly without the political posturing which skews so much environmental/energy debates in the UK. Everyone is waiting for the BGS report
Mr. Nelder treats overenthusiastic reports in the British press as though they are reality. As his article says, everything over there is in the exploratory phase. It took the first part of the '00s for fracking wells here in the US to "suddenly" produce the wealth of gas we saw starting in 2005. The truth is that if there's any recoverable gas to be found in Britain it will be recovered, and the amount recovered will have nothing to do with newspaper reports today. If it turns out to be a bust, so what? In at most three or four years Britain will know for sure one way or another. That's little time lost -- and much to gain if only a fraction of the reports are true. Mr. Nelder also points to the latest gas production reports here in the US by the EIA as signs that the fracking boom is ending. What I see from looking at the graph is a tremendous surge in gas production since 2005. Production has leveled off, but it's because the demand simply isn't there at the prices (around $4 per thousand cubic feet) where producers can make money. There is much talk about exporting gas, building new manufacturing plants that use a lot of gas, and of course burning it in place of coal for electricity, but there just hasn't been enough time for most of these new uses to develop. However, all these businesses can make money using $4 gas and gas producers will make money providing it to them at $4. Mr. Nelder seems to think that if we have massive reserves of natural gas, then of course we must go all out to get every single molecule of it just as soon as we can. The fact that we aren't somehow indicates to Mr. Nelder that the gas boom is really a bust. Markets don't work like that, and Mr. Nelder should review Econ 101. He might also talk to the CEOs of all these companies that are spending tens of billions betting that the gas will be there at reasonable prices for at least the next few decades.
Not really sure what the picture of the ruined castle and it's fireplace adds to the story. It's pretty poor journalism, of lazy stereotypes. Before Oil/Gas/Electricity, everyone in the world used Wood, and to a lesser extent coal, for heat/cooking. Castle's with fireplaces were only for the very few, extremely privileged top hierarchy of society. Everyone else would have has a fire in a pit, if they were lucky in-doors with a working chimney of sorts.
To get a more balanced view, consider viewing Fracknation by journalist Phelim McAlee, which was funded as a kickstarter project. He specifically rejected any funding from oil or gas company employees. Many, if not all of the anti-fracking claims by Josh Fox in Gasland are debunked, Josh Fox has been a real dick about confronting Phelim in any venue. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation is fracking like crazy, and increasing their foreign gas and oil exports, and may be funding anti-fracking groups in Europe and anywhere else they may have potential customers. The Russians have never had much of a reputation for "playing nice" where their national or financial security is at stake. If you want to know the truth about something, follow the money, who gains and who loses.
Can you imagine if the UK had to import most of its water and food from outside? Sure they could use cisterns and collect rain water for some use, but that doesn't make poisoned land viable again nor keep the animals from losing their hair/wool and dying. And bathing is best done in clean water. I saw the movie Gasland and I have seen and read anti-Gasland propaganda... The anti-Gasland stuff manages to disclaim 3 of the many reports in the movie and vaguely writes them off as land/wells naturally going bad (in spite of the surrounding area being fracked to hell). Gasland 2 has been made and is about to be released. If there wasnt anything to the first Gasland, they would have never made a part 2. Politics aside, Fracking is bad, very, very, very, bad. And all you trolls with your heads in the sand can go sod off, The site is called Smart Planet, not Moronic Planet, you tools are on the wrong site... Again.
Hi Chris - This is your fellow, UK-based, SmartPlaneteer. Welcome to Lake England. I'm not sure there is a rage - or as Neil P puts it above, a "fever" (I think you called it that yourself on your front page headline) - for shale gas here. There are indeed some fracking wannabes in the government. But as you note, there have only been a couple of explorations. If there's a collectively hot forehead, it belongs to the masses of people who oppose it. I don't see hydraulic fracturing happening in a small, densely populated country where the potential for things to go wrong - toxic leaks and all that - is higher than average. The UK will get fracked gas alright, but it will come from the U.S. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/as-us-readies-shale-gas-exports-domestic-users-face-hit/17005?tag=search-river. Who knows, UK manufacturers might even relocate to the States to fire up their factories with the stuff. May the Red White and Blue enjoy it while it lasts. I tend to concur with your view that there's not as much of it as some people say. Call my a cynic, but here's why you've seen a spate of fracking stories on your visit to this sodden country: The British government wants to light a fire under France's EDF. It's trying to get EDF to finally commit to building new nuclear reactors, and it has offered EDF strong incentives. The EDF/UK talks are approaching a make-or-break point, and EDF is showing signs of backing off. I don't think Prime Minister Cameron et al are discouraging the run of shale gas stories. You can almost hear them saying: "Hey France, this is your last chance. Build us some nukes, or a-frackin'-we-will-go. Hi ho the derry o! Even though we won't." The govt wants nukes more than it wants to squeeze the bejesus out of shale, and it's willing to use the mirage of fracking as a ploy. Meanwhile, if you think you've noticed a rage against the weather here, it's real. I hope it picks up for before you go. I'm an expat who has lived here for 13 years. They tell me summers used to be glorious. They might be lying. Or maybe there's a climate change story in there somewhere. Now, about those fuel choices....
Usable Fackin reserves are indeed short-lived -- something nobody in America likes to talk about -- and the United States is soon in for the nastiest shock (not including frackin earthquakes in geologically sensitive areas where earthquakes don't normally happen) it has ever experienced as a nation: the supply dries up almost overnight due to factors already voiced. Meanwhile, America continues to spiral its debt and deficit and when the frackin gas crap expires, Mexico will purchase the land once stolen from it, turn the land into big Native Indian reservations (most Mexican blood is richly that color) which will then politically become part of the Commonwealth of Mexico. Meanwhile, the white populations in the United States and Canada will plummet due to a severely shrinking birth rate, and become an almost insignificant minority within eight decades.
Don't know who you are talking to, but there is no 'shale gas fever' in the UK. What there is inertia, UK and EU politicisation of energy policy and incentives/levies, a misguided focus on Wind Farms to the detriment of other green generation, a lack of focus on reducing energy consumption through common sense/fundamental energy efficiency drives, big business and environmental activists fighting each other on eveyrthing, glacial pace on fundamental investment in (Nuclear) electricity generation base load and distribution, realisation there is hundred's of years of available Carbon power (as coal) under the UK, misguided crackpot schemes such as carbon capture and storage being funded to the detriment of planting natures own CCS device of tree's. Hopefully Shale gas can provide an environmentally sustainable and cheap energy source, but I fear little will change until UK energy consumption meets fundamental capacity limits and there are some blackouts over a coming winter after another aging Nuclear plant is decommissioned and another coal-fired power station is mothballed to meet EU CO2 targets.... .... at the same time as China are building coal fired electricity power stations hand over fist, and ignoring the environmental impact.
Indeed, which begs the question, why would any reputable news outlet want a hack like Chris Nelder contributing content on energy policy? The "growth trajectory" of shale gas plays in the U.S. has stalled only because it has been so wildly successful that we now have a natural gas supply glut. The slowdown in shale gas drilling is merely reflective of that, and resources have been shifted to tight oil drilling, which is now booming. What Nelder hasn't bothered sharing with you, gentle reader, is that the U.S. enjoys no singular geologic advantage over the rest of the world. Every hydrocarbon producing basin in the world is underlain by the very same types of shales that are now being targeted for oil and gas production in such spectacular fashion in the U.S. In fact, these shales are the *source* rocks from which all hydrocarbon production is ultimately derived. Prior to the advent of horizontal drilling and fracking, the entire history of the petroleum industry was focused on drilling for the *left overs*, i.e. hydrocarbons that have been expelled from the source rocks and subsequently migrated into porous, easily produced, conventional reservoirs. We can now target the source rocks directly. The shale gas and tight oil phenomenon is a technology revolution. As the technology inevitably disseminates to the rest of the world, we can expect a similar glut in production from the rest of the world's producing basins. Peak oil just got shoved decades into the future. Abundant, inexpensive petroleum-based energy will be with us for the rest of our lives, and probably our grandchildren's lives. No wonder renewable energy hacks like Nelder are gnashing their teeth.
And while climate change is debatable, what causes it - pollution - is not. We do not place value on cleaning up after ourselves, just dumping it in 'developing countries' and turning a blind eye to the birth defects and other issues they have, which might be a partial reason why they in turn put out toxic products (melamine dog food, lead in toys, etc, etc, etc). Good luck with oil - infinite or not, there is still the matter of how much time exists before it replenishes itself. This means one shouldn't use more than... you know, like "live beneath your means" despite costs and everything else except the ability to live (wages) going up...
* take handouts or subsidies or corporate welfare from taxpayers * doesn't use price wars or any other predatory means to destroy competition How long a list would you like?
The burning sink in Gasland was water from a well drilled into a natural methane pocket in a coal vein. There are hundreds if not thousands of such wells in coal country.
That right wing zealot had a presidential commission in his first term to address concerns over fracking and the determination was that with proper regulation and controls it was safe. As have countless other studies. Many of the incidents in Gasland were staged or shown to be due to causes other than shale gas fracking. So no on - except the lunatic fringe actually believes that the water supply of one third of US citizens is threatened.
Licences sought in Scotland too, on the quiet. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/revealed-secret-scots-fracking-plans.20661744
Wondering what the local will do when it gets into their water supply? You have to wonder what the locals are thinking when they allowed their politicians to do what ever they wanted, or maybe they have no say in it to start with.
Zackers wrote, "Mr. Nelder treats overenthusiastic reports in the British press as though they are reality." And you don't treat overenthusiastic reports in the US Press as though they are reality, as well as ignoring the climate and ecological consequences? Come on now! Reality is much harder for you to face than Mr. Nelder. "Reality," tends to be focused through our individual lenses but your lenses have a very large f-stop number and take in so little light.
If you truly believe that Fracknation was funded without the support of the industry you are not very familiar with this industry and their tactics. Yes, it was funded by Kickstarter Crowdfunding. If you think no energy executives or their employers, at the behest of said executives, did not donate, and donate, and donate you are a fool. It is amusing to me that no one thinks it is unusual that this film, above all other crowdfunding efforts, broke records in the speed with which it achieved it's goals. Think people! This industry has shown over and over it's willingness to influence in any way shape or form their ability to bypass laws and ethics to make money. It really is very simple, they will do anything including destroying the future of this world to make money now. You can either accept this and work against it, or deny it and be complicit.
Most Russian Fracking seems to revolve around extending the life of their existing oil fields?? They have yet to get info it in a big way, though are partnering up with Gazprom/Shell and Rosneft/Exxon Mobil to in the Salym area of the Bazhenov,. Russian leaders and Energy companies are fortunate enough that Russia is still under Putin's jackboot, and they can effectively do what they want without much interference from abroad, environmentalists and pesky people like the EPA.
But sometimes that the only way for half the population to wake up. Let it come we have been living off the hog for to long and its time for what we do to hurt and make us stop thinking we are so special. As for mexico, don't make me laugh, they need to fix their own issues down there.
Renewable energy, mostly hydropower, made up 19.3% of Chinaâs electricity generation near the start of 2011. Wind, solar and biomass together accounted for just 1.3%. But in the Chinese energy sector, the striking development during the past few years has been the soaring rise in the output of wind and solar power. Wind power generation last year leapt by 35.5% to slightly exceed the figure for nuclear, which grew during the year by 12.6%. Solar is also booming In the 11th Five Year Plan, covering the years 2006 to 2010, solar photovoltaic energy (along with wind power) was singled out for attention, and grew rapidly through local subsidies and low-interest loans from state banks. Targets were rapidly increased, with the industry anticipated to grow by 10 GW this coming year, and reaching 35 GW by 2015 â making it by far the worldâs largest producer and ousting Germany this year as largest consumer as well. IGNORING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? China has trialled a carbon tax in several provinces for the past few years and plans to introduce a country wide tax in 2015
The shale gas plays in the US has not stalled due to wild success, but because of ineptitude and greed. The shale gas phenomenon will die a fairly quick death in the US and around the world as soon as the facts are accepted and the big money of the industry can no longer pull the wool over the public's eyes. What tthor has completely ignored is the science. I know this is going to come as a shock to this person, but if we are still trying to use fossil fuels when his grandchildren are still around then the Earth will be finished as we know it. We know there is a limit to what we can send into our atmosphere, and we are dangerously close to that limit. Keep denying tthor and those grandchildren you speak of, that are probably destine to be mentally and physically inferior anyway considering the gene pool, will be poisoned by your denials. At least when my descendants ask me did I know and what did I do my conscience will be clear, if not my air.
The stumbling blocks are political? You've got to be kidding? The stumbling block is ecological catastrophe piled upon catastrophe. Nothing more to say other than to express hope that the Brits come to their senses in short order. It'll surely be before Americans do, because on such a heavily populated little island it won't be long after the fracking starts for the consequences to show themselves in no uncertain terms. How about a law that relegates any fracked NG only to building renewable infrastructure. Fat chance! FITs can accomplish the same purpose properly applied within the context of a carbon tax. Let's get on with it!
So all those wells just happen to wait until the ground is fracked to spew NG into the wells? And you are one of the deniers that claims all those wells going bad is just a coincidence and had nothing to do with them fracking everything around them. You are right about one thing, now days there are hundreds if not thousands of such wells in coal country.. But they were not that common before fracking... Hmmm. Go figure.
maybe they have a better ability to assess actual risk than you do and are not wondering at all but getting on with their life - as you should. Hmm - but I am wondering what will happen when an asteroid hits the earth and we are all vaporized - and next about solar flares that wipe out life on earth as we know it... and bird flu, and what about if Stalin is cloned and tries to take over the earth and ... and..
I think most people are aware of mega schemes such as the Six Gorges dam project. To label it as a renewable, although technically correct, willfully ignores the social and environmental upheaval this 400 mile mega project with an estimated relocation due to flooding of up to 1.2million people, 13 cities, 140 towns, 1352 villages, and 100,000 acres of Chinaâs most fertile farm land. The agriculture areas along the river have produced nearly half the countries total crop production. The farm land lost had provided 40% of Chinaâs grain and 70% of rice crops.
"The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,âno prospect of an end." - James Hutton Hutton was speaking about the nature of geologic processes and deep time, but one can't help but ponder whether he was obliquely referring to mankind's penchant for willful stupidity, with roscoe as a type specimen. Carbon Dioxide concentration in our geologic era is lamentably *low*, but don't expect the climate Malthusians to share that tidbit with you. Throughout most of the Earth's geologic history CO2 concentrations have been *considerably* higher than they are today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png roscoe's grand kids may indeed end up mentally and physically deficient, but one suspects this will be the unfortunate result of inbreeding among their antecedents, rather than continued reliance on fossil fuels. ;-)
"As the report stated there was troublesome amounts of methane in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/ California is full of natural oil seepage that triggers several calls a year to authorities from people concerned about about dumping or leaking pipelines. http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/05/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/03/08/how-to-keep-californias-natural-oil-seeps-from-killing-birds-allow-drilling/ I have walked beaches in California and seen natural tar balls as big as a cocker spaniel. In the late 1980s haz mat teams would periodicly comb beachs in the Oceanside area collecting tar balls to keep the beach clean.