#1 Fracking/Energy/Wind Farms etc: Britain 'to be hit by 70s-style blackouts withing three years' and EU rules may also force up bills, warns Ofgem (sic)

[Bev]

Few random snippets from recent news articles:

Ohio geologists have found a probable connection between fracking and a sudden burst of mild earthquakes last month in a region that had never experienced a temblor until recently, according to a state report.

The quake report, which coincided with the state’s announcement of some of the nation’s strictest limits on fracking near faults, marked the strongest link to date between nerve-rattling shakes and hydraulic fracturing -- the process of firing water, sand and chemicals deep into the earth to eject oil and natural gas out of ancient rock.

Last month, Ohio indefinitely shut down Hilcorp Energy’s fracking operation near the Pennsylvania border after five earthquakes, including one magnitude-3 temblor that awoke many Ohioans from their sleep.


Federal scientists have previously linked earthquakes in part to the use of injection wells, where post-fracking waste water is forced back deep into the earth for storage. None of the seven wells near the Ohio temblors were used for waste disposal, leaving Ohio scientists to go a step further to find a significant relationship between the initial blast of fluid and the earthquakes shortly after.

ht tp://ww w.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ohio-finds-link-fracking-earthquakes-20140411,0,570007.story#ixzz2ymQMW1bq

The way to beat Vladimir Putin is to flood the European market with fracked-in-the-USA natural gas, or so the industry would have us believe. As part of escalating anti-Russian hysteria, two bills have been introduced into the US Congress – one in the House of Representatives (H.R. 6), one in the Senate (S. 2083) – that attempt to fast-track liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, all in the name of helping Europe to wean itself from Putin's fossil fuels, and enhancing US national security.

According to Cory Gardner, the Republican congressman who introduced the House bill, "opposing this legislation is like hanging up on a 911 call from our friends and allies". And that might be true – as long as your friends and allies work at Chevron and Shell, and the emergency is the need to keep profits up amid dwindling supplies of conventional oil and gas.

For this ploy to work, it's important not to look too closely at details. Like the fact that much of the gas probably won't make it to Europe – because what the bills allow is for gas to be sold on the world market to any country belonging to the World Trade Organisation.

Or the fact that for years the industry has been selling the message that Americans must accept the risks to their land, water and air that come with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in order to help their country achieve "energy independence". And now, suddenly and slyly, the goal has been switched to "energy security", which apparently means selling a temporary glut of fracked gas on the world market, thereby creating energy dependencies abroad.

htt p://ww w.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/us-fracking-companies-climate-change-crisis-shock-doctrine

Oh, if only the people would accept earthquakes and a water shortage fracking, then we could hit Russia with more sanctions.

[Dawn Cannon]

Originally Posted by Bev

htt p://ww w.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/us-fracking-companies-climate-change-crisis-shock-doctrine

Oh, if only the people would accept earthquakes and a water shortage fracking, then we could hit Russia with more sanctions.

Poster M. Issig brought up this very same thing early on in the #Ukraine thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Issig
The natural gas frackers are licking their chops.

Only last week, approval was requested for construction of another gas pipeline in Pennsylvania, headed for Eastern terminals.

The frack gas always has been intended for export, rather than domestic use.

It will be sold in Europe at much greater market prices. The Russian suppliers to Europe would therefore have competition; Russia would lose a geopolitical tool; and, rather than reduce U.S. market prices as politicians have pandered, the big oil and gas companies (e.g. Chevron) enjoy windfall profits.

Fracking is HEAVILY subsidized by the US tax payer and is far from the miracle that some cornucopian/utopian types believe it to be.

[Bev]

Ministers want to give energy companies the right to run shale gas pipelines under private land, Whitehall sources have confirmed.

The planned move - aimed at kick-starting the fracking industry - will be included in the Queen's Speech as part of an Infrastructure Bill.

The companies will still need planning permission to drill for shale gas.

But they will be able to install pipes to transport the gas under private land without fear of breaking trespass laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has also indicated that the government could cut subsidies for land-based wind farms when it has "built enough to meet all our targets".
'

Ministers fear landowners and anti-fracking protesters would use existing law to block shale gas extraction in the UK, as it suggests prior permission is needed to run pipelines thousands of feet below private land.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said the Infrastructure Bill would make clear that putting pipes under private land would not constitute trespass - but it would also give the affected landowners the right to compensation.


Ministers are worried that other countries - especially in eastern Europe - have been making fracking there appear more attractive to investors than Britain.


“Start Quote

We need action not words on infrastructure if we're to get a recovery built to last”

Chris Leslie Shadow Treasury Secretary

They believe a clarification in the law will send a positive signal to companies.

The prime minister's official spokesman confirmed the government was looking at ways of making test drilling easier and to ensure there was not "an overburden of red tape and regulation".

He added: "Fracking is something that is very new, certainly in this country, which is why we are looking to see whether there are particular obstacles to the test drilling."

A conference on the potential economic benefits of fracking is to be held in Blackpool on Thursday.

The Infrastructure Bill would also give new freedoms to the Highways Agency in a bid to get more roads built, and planning changes to fast-track developments, according to The Financial Times.

Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne joined forces on Tuesday to promote the UK's construction programme.

The pair, who visited road building schemes, claimed more than 200 rail, road, local transport, broadband, airport and waste management projects were due to start construction over the next year, creating more than 150,000 jobs.

Downing Street said the jobs figure had been calculated using Office for National Statistics data.

The government says £36bn is being spent on the projects, which include flood damage repairs. That figure is made up of £5bn in public investment, £21bn private and £10bn in joint funding.

Mr Cameron said: "This government is backing business with better infrastructure so that more jobs and opportunities are created for hardworking people, meaning more financial security and peace of mind for families."

He also indicated that the government could look at cutting subsidies on land-based wind farms in the future.

Visiting the UK headquarters of the construction group Skanska, in Hertfordshire, the prime minister said: "We have now got the largest offshore wind farm anywhere in the world built off the coast of the UK and another one coming on stream almost as big very, very shortly.

"In terms of onshore wind, obviously there will come a time when we will have built enough to meet all our targets and so I've always said with subsidies, we shouldn't keep subsidies for longer than they are necessary and so that's something we'll be looking at."
Map showing areas of the UK licensed for oil and gas exploration and areas under consideration for licensing

Labour said the government's "reheated announcements" about infrastructure masked a failure to deliver and the lowest level of peacetime housebuilding since the 1920s.

Shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said: "We need action not words on infrastructure if we're to get a recovery built to last."

According to the Office for National Statistics infrastructure spending fell 11.4% in 2012 but went up by 2% last year.
line break
How land ownership rights have evolved
Illustration of how land ownership has evolved over time
Continue reading the main story

Before the twentieth century it was assumed a land owner's rights extended from the centre of the earth to the top of the sky. But a series of key court cases have challenged that notion.

1931: US court rules that a sewer 150ft deep was not on land belonging to the home owner above.

1946: US Supreme court rules that transcontinental flights do not trespass on land below.

1978: High Court of England and Wales says aerial photography plane was not trespassing.

2010: UK Supreme Court rules that diagonal drilling down to 2,800ft from an adjacent plot of land is still trespassing under the surface.

h ttp://ww w.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27110655

[Bev]

Fracking could trigger a £33bn investment bonanza and create 64,000 jobs, promises a new report for the shale industry released on Thursday and part-funded by government.

The spending would go on 50 new land-based drilling rigs, 8,000 miles of steel casing and hundreds of pumps needed over a 16-year period to 2032, according to Ernst & Young who produced the report.

Michael Fallon, the business and energy minister, said the study highlighted the "huge prize" at stake for the UK in terms of manufacturing while he went on to promise £2m of spending on developing new technology.

But Greenpeace described the predictions based on 4,000 wells being drilled as a "rehash of rose-tinted industry guesstimates" and questioned why public money was spent on funding the report and new techniques.

The review, Getting Ready for UK shale gas, published at a supply chain conference in Blackpool, says the bulk of the spending (£17bn) would go on specialised equipment and skills for fracking, a controversial technique using chemicals for breaking up shale rock to release hydrocarbons.

A further £4.1bn would go on "waste, storage and transportation" with a further £2.3bn on steel with the estimate of 64,000 jobs based on direct and indirect positions created.

But the report also urged the oil and gas industry to start investing immediately to prevent shale gas supply and skill bottlenecks building up across the supply sector.

Fallon promised £2m of public cash to encourage the development of new technology to help the shale industry while insisting fracking can be undertaken within a wider framework of curbing carbon emissions.

"Shale gas has the potential to kickstart a whole new industry, building on the world leading expertise the UK already has in the energy sector. There will be significant opportunities across the steel, manufacturing and engineering industries as shale develops," he said.

Fallon also said he would look at the issue of whether landowners could legally prevent horizontal shale wells being drilled under their land.

He told the BBC's Today programme: "I hope we can clear this up very quickly, because we want to encourage shale gas; we want to make sure it's done responsibly. Again, it's going to require local planning permission, but there shouldn't really be any doubt as to whether you've got permission to go under somebody's land or not – we do want to clarify that."

Doug Parr, the chief scientific officer for Greenpeace UK, which has encouraged landowners to exercise their rights to halt drilling, was scathing about the Ernst & Young report: "Paying accountants to tally up hypothetical jobs won't change the fact that executives still have no idea whether they'll actually be able to get gas out of the ground on a commercial scale in the UK."

He added: "Scratch beneath the hype and this report is actually a veiled plea for government and taxpayer support for an industry that has stalled before even taking off. It's less about what fracking can do for your country, and more about what your country should do for fracking."

The Institute of Directors (IoD), which has produced a number of its own optimistic forecasts on shale in the past, said the Ukraine crisis highlighted the importance of securing Britain's energy security.

The employer's organisation said it was "disappointed" that progress to date had been so slow with exploiting shale.

Dan Lewis, senior policy adviser at the IoD, said: "Despite the government's positive move to change our archaic trespass laws, there are still many costly delays facing the industry. Having to wait six-eight years after receiving a licence to start commercial production is far too long. Until we streamline the process and end the tick-box culture, we will continue to put off investors."

htt p://w ww.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/24/fracking-generate-investment-jobs-industry-report-uk

[Bev]

Regulated fracking should be an "urgent national priority", an influential group of Lords has said.

Shale gas can bring "substantial benefits" to "the economy, to national energy security and to the environment", the Lords committee said.

Green campaigners have said that the Lords "cherry-picked" evidence for the report and have engaged in "taxpayer-funded cheerleading" for fracking.

The UK should focus on renewable energy instead of shale gas, campaigners said.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee called on the UK government to speed up shale gas development in the country.
Simplified Regulation

There are "substantial shale gas and oil resources" and "exploration and appraisal is urgently needed to establish their economic potential," the committee said.

The group of peers is "disappointed" that the exploratory drilling with hydraulic fracturing needed for shale gas development "has hardly begun".

The committee called for simplified regulation of shale oil and gas exploration "to encourage development of shale and reassure communities that risks of harm to the environment or human health are low".

The extensive use of fracking in the US has prompted environmental concerns.
Chemicals

Hydraulic fracturing of shale to extract gas involves pumping water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure to allow the gas to flow out to the head of the well.

There is a worry that chemicals used in fracking may escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site.

Another environmental concern is that fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost.

"We welcome the committee's conclusion that risks to health and the environment are low if shale development is properly regulated," Energy Minister Michael Fallon said. "We will consider the report's conclusions very carefully."

Green campaigners dismissed the Lords report and called for a greater emphasis on renewable energy.

Greenpeace said: "The real urgent national priority is to push ahead with the renewable technology and efficiency measures which would much more rapidly address the security issues flagged up by the Ukraine crisis."

"The Lords spent seven months cherry-picking the wafer-thin evidence that fits a foregone conclusion about the benefits of shale gas. This is just more taxpayer-funded cheerleading from unelected politicians who seem all too happy to ignore the country's legitimate concerns about fracking."

The campaigning group, Friends of the Earth, commented: "Today's report recognises that the regulations aren't working - but calling for the Government to 'simplify' regulations and speed up the process will not reassure local communities and a public unconvinced by this risky technology."

http://w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27312796

I'd like to know which peers are behind this and what influence they have on who. Any vested interests?

[Sam Emerson]

Originally Posted by Bev

I'd like to know which peers are behind this and what influence they have on who. Any vested interests?

In the US there's a correlation between being for "energy independence" and fanatical Zionism. Two of the largest beneficiaries of high oil prices (outside the US itself) are Saudi Arabia and Russia, both to some degree enemies of neocon ambitions. So I'd look for that.

[NewsFeed]

You Tube

You Tube

Public awareness of the risks and dangers of hydraulic gas-fracturing, or Fracking, is growing daily, but not nearly as fast as the practice itself is. Across the world, fracking is creating a massive new energy boom and investors are pouring money into energy companies who are setting up frack wells faster than the public can even figure out what’s happening.

Fracking causes significant environmental damage, yet the industry, of course, touts it as safe, saying that the stated risks are either unproven or circumstantial. In some cases industry is even suing detractors and people directly impacted by fracking for slander. Because of the denial and obfuscation of truth surrounding the impacts of fracking, a sort of cognitive dissonance has emerged, with many people willing to dismiss all of the noted side effects as unrelated, on the grounds that no singular authoritative scientific body has publicly declared fracking to be dangerous, and that the oil and gas industry has not yet admitted fault.

The impacts of fracking, from earthquakes to environmental pollution to increases in cancer, are well documented on many websites and in many , by scholarly researchers, scientists and government agencies, by anecdotal stories, documentary films, and home videos. If you want to believe that fracking is a safe and smart way of managing the earth and our resources then you really have to suspend disbelief in the face of an ever-growing body of evidence and complaints.

One of the most outrageous and unbelievable effects of fracking in some areas is the phenomenon of tap water becoming flammable, straight from the tap, due to methane and other gasses leaching into ground wells and water supplies. Watching a faucet set on fire and hearing the stories of the people involved is not something that can be too readily dismissed, and here are a 5 examples of this:

1. Steve Lipsky of Weatherford, Texas, is facing a defamation lawsuit from the oil and gas industry after he has publicly decried fracking as the source of the contamination of his water, which is now flammable. The city has told him this water is safe to drink. From RT.com:

2. Shelly Perdue lives less then a half a mile from Steven Lipsky in Weatherford Texas. The water from her well, like his, is also flammable, and her home has methane gas in the air when she runs her water. Footage from Julie Dermansky.

3. In Granville Township, Pennsylvania, home of Chesapeake Energy’s massive fracking operations, homeowners are able to light their tap water on fire and their homes routinely smell like methane.

4. From the documentary film, , Dimock, Pennsylvania residents demonstrate just how flammable their tap water has become since fracking emerged.

5. In Parker County, Texas, residents are seen setting aflame a vent hose set up by the water well company to vent the methane gas coming from a contaminated water well. This is a demonstration of just how much methane is now combined with water resources in this area.

Conclusion

All of these cases share the common thread of nearby fracking operations. If the water is flammable, one has to wonder how this affects human, animal and plant life in the area, as cancer and other chronic illnesses continue to rise in the US. For homeowners and residents suffering from the negative impacts of fracking, the Environmental Protection Agency has been of little help.

“The agency that derives its income and survival from oil and gas production is usually put in charge of also regulating the protection of ground water from oil and gas wells. And there’s an inherent conflict of interest in that” – Mario Salazar

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an avid student of Yoga and life.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Alex Pietrowski of Waking Times.

read full article at source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/5-vid...ammable_052014

[Dawn Cannon]

In addition to post #65

Britain'll look like rural Albania without fracking

In the US, gas has fallen to a third of the price in the UK, creating an economic revival based on new investment in manufacturing and industry. LOL


The lords aren't impressed by a focus on what they called "some strident local opposition", stating there is actually "little hard evidence of public opinion" one way or another on fracking.

The committee recommends that "the Government should amend relevant legislation to ensure that subsurface drilling for oil and gas can go ahead without undue delay or cost. This change should ensure that the fact that UK landowners do not own petroleum rights makes little difference to the speed of shale gas and oil development; in practice, it may even make subsurface drilling under third party land easier in the UK than it is in the US."

The Institute of Directors reckons the UK spends £15bn a year importing gas, which could be reduced by half by 2030 if the UK's shale fields are tapped. The UK would then be less reliant on Russian gas.

Evidence from Professor Dieter Helm, an Oxford University economist specialising in utilities, infrastructure, regulation and the environment, warned that the "capacity margin" – the ability to generate more electricity than consumers need – will be "very close to zero” by 2015 and 2016 - leaving several years of negative margin (ie, power cuts or hugely expensive imports) to plug the gap, before new nuclear capacity comes on line. Prof Helm described UK energy policy as "a slow motion car crash".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...ors_picks=true

With the insane and increasing overpopulation, we already stated that this island would need (China to build and pay for) over 200 nuclear plants.

How is looking like rural Albania worse than becoming down town Johannesburg, or Port au Prince, Haiti.

[joefrombradford]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lord-howell...-votes-1448548

[Dawn Cannon]

To read the headlines, it seems that the USA has emerged out of the blue to the point of becoming the world’s oil and gas production giant. All thanks to the Shale Revolution. Recently President Obama made various noises that the US could solve the Ukraine gas dependency on Russian gas because of the spectacular growth of extracting natural gas, and more recently, oil, from shale rock formations across the US. There’s only one thing wrong with this picture—“It ain’t gonna happen…”

The surface numbers are indeed impressive to a layman or politician. According to US Government Energy Information Administration data, between 2005 and 2010 the contribution from shale gas to total US marketed gas production rose from less than 2% to more than 20%. And 2011 set an all-time record for US production as the result of shale gas growth.

However the shale gas comes from a small number of areas with significant and viable shale rock formations that have trapped gas and oil in the interstices of the sedimentary shale rocks. The main shale gas areas are the Barnett shale in Texas’

Fort Worth basin; the Fayetteville and Woodford shales of the Arkoma basin in Arkansas and Oklahoma; the Haynesville shale on the Texas Louisiana boarder; the Marcellus shale in the Appalachian basin, and the most recently exploited, the Eagle Ford shale in southwest Texas.

Two metrics widely used in describing shale well performance are the initial production (IP) rate and the production decline rate which together determine the ultimate recovery (UR) from a well, an essential number in determining economic viability. A group at MIT university in Massachusetts carried out an analysis of production data from the major US shale regions. What they found is sobering. While initial production from most shale gas plays was unusually high, an essential component of the Wall Street shale gas bubble hype, the same gas regions declined dramatically within a year. They found “in general, shale well output tends to drop by 60% or more from the Initial Production rate level over the first 12 months. The second is that the available longer-term production data suggests that levels of production decline in later years are moderate, often less than 20% per year.”

Translated, that means on average after only four years, you have only 20% of your initial gas volume available from a given horizontal drilling investment with fracking. After seven years, only 10%. The real volume shale gas boom appeared in 2009. That means in the fields where significant drilling was present by 2009 are already dramatically depleted by 80% and soon by 90%. The only way oil or gas drillers have managed to maintain production volume has been to drill ever more wells, spending ever more money, taking on ever more debt in hopes of a sharp rise in the depressed US domestic gas price. As a whole shale energy companies spend more than they are making in net profit, creating a bubble of “junk” bond debt to keep the Ponzi game going. That bubble will pop the second the Fed hints interest rates will rise, or even sooner.

The industry tries hard to pump the prospects of the shale revolution. One of the most outspoken recently was the CEO of Conoco/Philips, Ryan Lance. Taking a baseball analogy, he recently told an energy conference in Houston that the shale gas “revolution” in the country is only just beginning and there should be several decades left of successful energy production: “We’re in the first inning of a nine-inning game on the shale revolution in the United States.” He did not make clear what the scientific connection between baseball and shale gas was.

The reality of the shale gas boom is increasingly being shown to be quite different. According to Arthur Berman, a petroleum geologist of 34 years’ experience who has studied production and other aspects of the shale gas and oil boom, “forecasts show production in shale plays from North Dakota’s Bakken to Texas’s Eagle Ford will peak around 2020. Those investing with the expectation that the boom will last for decades are “way out of line.”

To be concrete, the major shale formations in the US, and there are not that many geologically-speaking, will begin an absolute production decline in less than six or seven years. Unlike conventional gas or oil fields, shale is an unconventional and difficult way to extract energy by the highly controversial and toxic practice of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing of the shale formations. As the shale runs horizontally, perfection of new horizontal drilling techniques in the 1990’s opened commercial prospects for shale gas for the first time.

Fracking the Bakken Formation in North Dakota

The hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping a fracturing fluid—typically highly toxic and exempt, thanks to then-Vice President Cheney’s Congressional influence, from EPA Clean Water Act regulations—into to the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure down-hole at the target zone. The rock cracks and the fracture fluid continues further into the rock, extending the crack still further, and so on. Often up to 70% of the toxic fracking fluids leak and in many cases in Pennsylvania and elsewhere seep into the ground water.

Even the US Government’s EIA projects that US oil output will peak at 9.61 million barrels a day in 2019. They see tight-oil or shale oil topping at 4.8 million barrels in 2021. That’s only seven years out. And if the US Government is trying to fast-track approval of LNG gas export terminals on coastal ports to allow US gas companies to export their gas, completion of such complex terminals including environmental impact approvals typically takes seven years. Hmmmm.

Wall Street easy money

No one expects the President of the US to have the time or the scientific background to delve into the geophysical complexities of shale energy. He naturally relies on competent advisers. What if the advisers, instead of being competent, like in so many government agencies today, are in the sway (and sometimes perhaps pay) of the shale energy companies and their Wall Street investment bankers who have hundreds of billions of dollars riding on promoting the shale hype?

The current US Shale boom is being sustained on steroids, otherwise known as the Fed’s never-ending Quantitative Easing zero-interest-rate policy, a stance that shows no sign of reverting to normal interest rate levels as the economy continues to be depressed since the collapse of the 2007 real estate mortgage securitization bubble. In effect, shale drillers are able to keep in business only because Wall Street and other investors continue to throw money at them like it was falling from trees. Tim Gramatovich, chief investment manager for Peritus Asset Management LLC, an $800 million fund, notes, “There’s a lot of Kool-Aid that’s being drunk now by investors. People lose their discipline. They stop doing the math. They stop doing the accounting. They’re just dreaming the dream, and that’s what’s happening with the shale boom.”

Given the endless zero interest rate regime of the Fed, investment funds are desperate to find investments that yield higher interest. They are so desperate they are pouring money into shale gas and shale or tight oil companies like never before. The companies are operating at losses, loaded with debt and the credit rating agencies rate their debt as “junk”, i.e. in a market downturn, likely to default. One such company, Rice Energy, sold its bonds in April with a rating of CCC+ by Standard & Poor’s, seven steps below investment grade. That is below the minimum risk/quality level that major investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies, are allowed to buy. S&P says debt rated in the CCC range is “currently vulnerable to nonpayment.” Despite that, Rice Energy was able to borrow at an astonishingly low 6.25 percent.

“This is a melting ice cube business,” said Mike Kelly, at Global Hunter Securities in Houston. “If you’re not growing production, you’re dying.” Of the 97 energy exploration and production companies rated by S&P, 75 are “junk” or below investment grade. The shale “revolution” is but a Ponzi Scheme disguised as an energy revolution.

http://journal-neo.org/2014/05/12/wa...om-going-bust/

[Bev]

The UK government has proposed new rules regarding rights to access land in a bid to speed up the introduction of fracking.

It proposes that shale oil and gas companies are granted access to land below 300m from the surface.

It also suggests firms pay £20,000 per well to people living above the land.

The consultation comes as a new report by the British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates there are 4.4bn barrels of oil in shale rocks in southern England.

The BGS estimates there are between 2.2 billion and 8.6 billion barrels of shale oil in the Weald Basin - that covers areas including Sussex, Hampshire, Surrey and Kent - but says there is "no significant gas resource".

These figures represent the total amount of oil in the rocks, only some of which can be accessed.

"It is not known what percentage of the oil present in the shale could be commercially extracted," the survey said.
'Opportunities'

Announcing the government proposals, Energy Minister Michael Fallon said: "Britain needs more home-grown energy.

"Shale development will bring jobs and business opportunities.

"We are keen for shale and geothermal exploration to go ahead while protecting residents through the robust regulation that is in place.

"These proposals allow shale and geothermal development while offering a fair deal for communities in return for underground access at depths so deep they will have no negative impact on landowners."

The new proposals do not affect the existing system for gaining access rights to land on the surface.

The government also proposed a new notification system to ensure local communities are well informed about any shale developments in their area.


A series of reports has concluded that locally, fracking for oil and gas is relatively benign, if done with care.

But reports continue to emerge from the USA and Australia about careless fracking polluting air and water.

And since anti-fracking protests in Sussex last summer, support for the technology has slumped to below 50% in the UK.

People are most worried about water pollution and earthquakes, but experts say the biggest local impact is more likely to be on traffic and noise.

The UN's climate panel said gas (implicitly from fracking) could be a bridge to a low-carbon future - if it substitutes for coal and if accidental methane releases are stopped.

The Environment Agency says the UK cannot meet greenhouse gas laws unless further technology is introduced to capture and store the emissions of CO2 from gas.

The BBC's John Moylan said the report's estimates could have implications for the UK's long-term energy security and kick-off a drive to start fracking for oil in the region.

By way of comparison, the equivalent of around 45 billion barrels of oil has been extracted from the North Sea over the past 40 years.

Last year, a BGS study of the North of England suggested there could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas contained in shale rocks.

The fracking process involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into rock at high pressure, and it has sparked demonstrations by environmentalists. Some governments have banned the process.

Critics argue that fracking damages water supplies and can cause earthquakes. There have been strong anti-fracking protests at Balcombe, West Sussex, against test-drilling.

However, a government report published in June 2012 concluded that fracking was safe if adequately monitored.


Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted fracking will be "good for our country" and has blamed a "lack of understanding" of the process for some of the opposition.


There's been a long history of oil and gas exploration in this area. We as a company produce oil and gas from around 20 sites across that area”

Andrew Austin Chief executive, IGAS

Fracking is also politically sensitive. Tory peer Lord Howell of Guildford - who apologised last year after saying that fracking should take place in the North East because it was "desolate" - recently spoke about the issue again, and said the Conservative Party could lose votes by pursuing plans to frack.

The counties covered by the BGS survey are considered strong Tory territory.

For many years, there has been more traditional exploration and development of oil and gas in the region.

Andrew Austin, chief executive of the onshore energy IGAS, said it had long been known that southern England had extensive resources.

He told the BBC: "We've known that there's a big potential for oil and gas explorations across the country but particularly in terms of oil in the Weald Basin which is the area that stretches roughly from Winchester across towards Gatwick, up to the M25 and down to the coast at Chichester.

"There's been a long history of oil and gas exploration in this area. We as a company produce oil and gas from around 20 sites across that area. Around 40 million barrels have been recovered from that area to date."

In the US, fracking for oil and gas has created an energy boom and led to speculation that the country could overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer by 2020, or even sooner.

Gas prices in the US have fallen sharply as a result, and other countries are now hoping that shale oil and gas could also lead to lower domestic energy prices.

h ttp://ww w.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27529175

I wonder if the Tories still think that fracking is "good for our country" now it's got the South stamped on it?

[Bev]

An infrastructure and competitiveness bill to be announced in the Queen’s speech on Wednesday will change trespassing laws, allowing shale gas exploration firms to drill on private land without requiring the permission of the owner, UK media report.

The Queens speech marks the formal start of the parliamentary year and sets the proposed government agenda for the session, which will run from June 4. On Sunday, British media started leaking the contents of this year's address, its topics varying from fracking to a “radical shake-up of workplace pensions.”
Fracking

The fracking bill will allow companies to drill on private property without asking permission through reform of trespassing laws, according to ITV.

Shale gas extraction is not really popular with affected communities. Manchester saw hundreds rally in March demanding to ban the practice. Environmental activists are strongly opposed to the technique, which has already been proven to cause small earthquakes in the US. A number of studies have also revealed water pollution, and the practice has also been linked to health problems, including birth defects in unborn infants in the US.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett stated that the Government was ‘focusing on the fantasy of fracking.’

“We're obviously opposed to that because we're opposed to the whole idea of fracking. I think it's really a demonstration of how this Government - which we might recall once claimed to be the greenest Government ever, which is now a very sad, sick joke,” Bennett Told Sky News' Murnaghan program after hearing the news.

A leading fracking company has previously made statements saying that the industry will be completely crushed in the UK if government doesn’t allow it to drill under people’s private property without their permission.

Cuadrilla chief executive Francis Egan told The Times it would be ‘impractical’ to negotiate with every individual landowner.

h ttp://r t.com/news/162896-queen-fracking-pensions-speech/

[Dawn Cannon]

Prime minister Li Keqiang's arrival could signal deepening Chinese involvement in energy, nuclear power and infrastructure



A three-day visit to Britain by the Chinese premier Li Keqiang starting on Monday is expected to lead to nearly £18bn of deals being signed, including a deepening Chinese involvement in energy, nuclear power and other UK infrastructure.

In his first visit to Britain since becoming prime minister last year, Li will also announce investment plans that George Osborne, chancellor, will argue show that London is going to be the world centre for renminbi trading.

China Construction Bank, China's second-largest lender, has been selected to become the first clearing service for renminbi trading in London. Chinese companies are expected to announce fresh details of their plans to provide finance and technology for the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset. And the recently created China Minsheng Investment (CMI) is expected to reveal plans to set up a London office and put money into British companies. CMI, led by Dong Wenbiao, chairman of China Minsheng Banking Corporation, has about £5bn under management.

Li will be accompanied by about 200 Chinese business leaders, not all of them part of the official visit, including the heads of some of his country's biggest banks. He will meet the Queen during his stay in Britain.

Chinese companies China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) have already agreed in principle to be minority shareholders in the Hinkley Point project.

So far only letters of intent have been signed by EDF Group, Areva, CGN and CNNC to become strategic and industrial partners in the project. The two Chinese companies were due to take a stake of between 30% and 40%, but that may yet increase.

EDF Energy, which runs 15 nuclear power plants, has been working with CGN and CNNC for 15 years. CGN currently operates 8.3 gigawatts of nuclear power. It has eight units in operation and 15 under construction, including two reactors being built in a joint venture with EDF at Taishan. CNNC has nine units in operation and 12 under construction.


The Home Office will also issue a report easing restrictions on visas for Chinese visitors to Britain, a longstanding Chinese demand. There is likely to be a 24-hour "super-priority" service for important business visitors, and the extension of a pilot scheme that lets tourists receive a British entry permit at the same time as a visa for countries in the Schengen area.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-of-investment

[Bev]

Report finds "quite modest" 6bn barrels of shale oil and 80 tcf of shale gas in Scotland, but ministers say they expect "strong interest" in fracking


Fracking should and will proceed in Scotland despite the existence of only relatively "modest" amounts of shale gas and oil, ministers have said.

A British Geological Survey study of shale resources in Scotland's "Midland Valley", spanning Glasgow and Edinburgh, estimated there could be 6 billion barrels of oil and 80 trillion cubic feet of gas beneath the ground.

Mike Stephenson of the BGS described the findings as "quite modest". Only a much smaller amount - perhaps less than 10pc - is likely to be technically viable to extract and the BGS said there was particular uncertainty about how much might be recoverable in Scotland due to a lack of historical data.

Mr Stephenson also suggested it was "pretty unlikely" that fracking for shale gas would take place under the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, potentially rendering significant amounts of the shale gas inaccessible.

The estimated volume of shale oil in Scotland is slightly larger than the amount estimated to lie in the Weald basin of southern England, while the volume of gas is "much, much lower" than the resource - 1,300 tcf - estimated to lie within the Bowland basin in the north of England.


Mr Stephenson said the surveys had "shown very clearly that the north of England has the largest resources", acknowledging that there could also be significant amounts of oil in the Bowland region - a factor not considered by the original BGS study.

But Michael Fallon, the energy minister, said he nevertheless expected to see "strong interest" in Scotland and the Weald, as well as in the Bowland, when the Government launches its next "licensing round", offering companies the chance for drilling rights. The round is expected imminently.

“Making the most of Britain’s home grown energy is crucial to keep job and business opportunities, widen tax revenues and reduce our reliance on foreign imports," he said.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change insisted that the uncertainty over the potential in Scotland made fracking "even more important to determine how much can be recovered".

Mr Fallon also suggested that the findings helped make the case for Union, ahead of Scotland's independence referendum in September. “Only the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom can attract investment in new energy sources and maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs," he said.

Murdo Fraser MSP, Scottish Conservative energy spokesman, said: "It's clear from this report that there is enough potential for shale to warrant more testing and drilling. If we are sitting on billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas, it's essential we at least check it out."

Expert opinion appeared to be divided over the significance of the BGS findings.

David Ross, energy and planning specialist at law firm Pinsent Masons, said that if 8 tcf could be recovered it "would equate to around 27 years’ worth of Scotland’s gas demand".

"This would be a significant supplement to the Bowland shale reserves in the north of England and represent a valuable source of energy for the wider UK market," he said.

But Andrew Aplin, Professor of Unconventional Petroleum at Durham University, said that Scottish shale oil and gas was unlikely to make a significant difference to the UK’s import dependency.

“The key issue is the proportion of the oil and gas that might be recoverable, which is likely to be low as a result of the complex geology of the region, plus the fact that neither the rocks nor the oil appear to be of optimal quality," he said.

He suggested that 5pc of the gas might be recoverable, equating to about one year’s UK consumption. For oil, he suggested that just 1pc might be recoverable as "neither the rock nor the oil is of optimal quality".

"This would equate to 0.06 billion barrels, which is about two months UK consumption. It could be a lot of effort for not very much reward," he said.

h ttp://ww w.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10936259/Ministers-urge-fracking-in-Scotland-despite-modest-oil-and-gas-resources.html

[Dawn Cannon]

Wasn't sure where to put this one as the gas (formerly Palestinian until the UN gave it to someone else) concerns Europe as a whole rather than just the British Islands.


Over the weekend, Britain's BG Group plc (used to be British Gas back before "The Invasion Year of 1997") signed a letter of intent seeking to buy 105 billion cubic meters of natural gas from the offshore Israeli Leviathan reservoir. The 15-year deal is not finalized, but would be worth approximately $30 billion.

BG Group envisions the gas being sent by an underwater pipeline to its nearby liquefaction facility in Egypt, where it would be turned into liquefied natural gas and exported to Europe for a big profit.


Leviathan: Israel's first foray into offshore energy production
The Leviathan field is in the Mediterranean Sea, 80 miles west of Haifa. The reservoir of Leviathan and the nearby Tamar gas field are estimated to contain 535 billion cubic meters of gas, of which the BG Group's deal would be essentially 20%.

The initial development was slowed by a maritime boundary dispute with Lebanon, though Lebanon has since clarified its status on where the border actually lies, and Leviathan is free and clear in Israeli waters.

The operator of the Leviathan project is Noble Energy , which also owns a 39.66% interest in it. Two subsidiaries of Israel's Delek Group own a further 45%.

The production at Leviathan and Tamar is set to make Israel a major player in the regional natural gas market at an ideal time. Israel's own imports have been cut off by the fighting in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula since last summer's military coup. The BG Group facility in Egypt has similarly been having supply problems because of Egypt diverting more of its own production to domestic use.


A win-win
Liquefied natural gas prices have been surging in recent months in Asia, and with questions about Russian giant OAO Gazprom's ability to continue shipments to Western Europe amid a pricing dispute with Ukraine, the price in Europe is under similar upward pressure.

The Leviathan project and the availability of offshore gas so close to its plant is a godsend to BG Group, as it could give the company a reliable source of gas for liquefaction just when those exports are coming into the highest demand.

That's great for BG Group, but the bigger winners here are Noble Energy and Delek Group, as they have a great chance at securing a reliable export market. That's not to be underestimated, as Israel isn't on the best of terms with anyone else in the region for making big trade deals.


http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-noble-en.aspx

[Englisc]

The British Geological Survey and the Environment Agency have mapped where key aquifers in England and Wales coincide with locations of shale.

The research reveals this occurs under nearly half of the area containing the principal natural stores of water.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28130982

[Bev]

Fracking industry fumes as researchers reveal high levels of leaking methane

The latest drilling techniques for obtaining gas, which drill horizontally as opposed to the more traditional vertical drilling, shows a higher rate of leaking methane, according to a study that could spell problems for fracking across the nation.

After poring over data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection involving more than 41,000 wells, it was determined that more than 6 percent of the active gas wells drilled in the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania “show compromised cement and/or casing integrity,” according to an academic paper published on Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team of four scientists – working without federal funding – conducted analysis on more than 75,000 state inspections of gas wells performed in Pennsylvania since 2000.

The results suggest that hazardous leaks of methane could pose potential obstacles for drilling across the nation, said study lead author Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea, who leads an environmental activist group that helped subsidize the study.

The leak rate of methane was found in nearly 10 percent of horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania, where fracking is a serious business.

"Something is coming out of it that shouldn't, in a place that it shouldn't," said Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell professor of civil and environmental engineering who led the research team, as quoted by AP.


The researchers admitted they are not sure exactly where the leaking methane goes — into the water or the air, but neither alternative is a positive prospect in light of a number of incidences thought to involve the escaping gas.

“These results, particularly in light of numerous contamination complaints and explosions nationally in areas with high concentrations of unconventional oil and gas development and the increased awareness of the role of methane in ... climate change, should be cause for concern,” said the researchers in the paper.

The researchers did not specify the size of the leaks, saying only that the metal pipes used to extract the natural gas were suffering "casing and cement impairment."

“In a typical well, hundreds of bags of cement are mixed and injected,” said Ingraffea. “If the water-to-cement mixture ratio isn’t right, you have problems. With too much water, the cement shrinks. With too little water, the mixture dries too fast.”

The research was roundly and predictably condemned by fracking proponents, who are determined to tap into trapped natural gas in fields across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York, where legislation was just passed giving towns the right to ban fracking.

Marcellus Shale Coalition spokesman Travis Windle complained the paper reflects Ingraffea's "clear pattern of playing fast and loose with the facts."

Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy In Depth, said what the researchers may have confused leaks with pressure buildup in the pipes.

"The trick these researchers are pulling here is conflating pressure with leakage, trying to convince folks that the mere existence of the former is evidence of the latter," Tucker told AP in an email.



Other scientists, however, were of the opinion that the findings of the study deserve careful consideration

"It clearly indicates that there is a problem with the production" of the fracking techniques, warned Ira Leifer, University of California Santa Barbara engineering professor, who did not participate in the study, AP reported.

Colorado halts fracking wastewater injections after earthquake hits state

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania environmental officials said their data indicates that methane leaks peaked in 2010 and are on the decrease again, reflecting their campaign to enhance cementing practices.

House votes to expedite US natural gas exports

Other contributors to the paper, ‘Assessment and Risk Analysis of Casing and Cement Impairment in Oil and Gas Wells in Pennsylvania, 2000-2012’, were Martin Wells, Cornell professor of statistical sciences; Renee Santoro of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Ithaca, New York; and Seth Shonkoff, University of California, Berkeley.

h ttp:// rt.com/usa/169592-fracking-pennsylvania-study-scandal/

[Englisc]

A picturesque village in West Sussex has become the first community in the country to successfully fight off an application by an energy company to explore for oil and gas, in a blow to the Government’s hopes of a British fracking boom.

West Sussex County Council’s planning committee refused an application by Celtique Energie for oil and gas exploration near the village of Wisborough Green, a conservation area just outside the South Downs National Park.

The council announced the decision yesterday at a public meeting attended by local campaigners, which included Likely Lads actor James Bolam and his wife Susan Jameson, who had argued that the exploration would lead to controversial fracking for oil or gas in the area. They also claimed that lorries would need to pass through the quiet village 24 times a day.

The proposals, which attracted nearly 2,500 objections from locals, were also criticised by local MP Nick Herbert, the former Conservative Police and Criminal Justice Minister, who warned that they could lead to rural West Sussex becoming “a carelessly industrialised landscape”.

The council said it had turned down the application because it was worried that the exploration activity would have an adverse effect on the area, adding that other sites might be more appropriate. Planning committee chair Heidi Brunsdon said: “There were simply too many highways issues and other issues of concern for any decision other than refusal in this instance. We have noted the objections of the local community.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...g-9621857.html

[Bev]

Scottish ministers say they want devolved powers on oil and gas drilling in Scotland after Westminster announced it will press ahead with plans to allow fracking companies to drill below people's land without their agreement.

The UK-wide plan would give companies the right to drill at depths of 300 metres or more under private land without negotiating a right of access.

Scotland's Energy Minister said decisions on oil and gas drilling in Scotland should be made by the people who live there. The UK Government responded, saying that most of the powers needed to make decisions on the matter are already devolved to Holyrood.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) ran a consultation earlier this year asking whether the Government should legislate for underground access to gas, oil and geothermal developers below 300 metres.

More than 99% of the 40,647 respondents opposed the idea but the DECC said it will continue with the proposed policy, saying it is the "right approach".

Mr Ewing said: "Whatever your view on the issue of unconventional oil and gas - and it is clear that there are both opportunities and concerns - there is only one way that the people of Scotland can determine the approach in Scotland - including beneath their homes and land.

"That is with the devolution of the necessary powers to Scotland and the current devolution process for the 'extensive new powers' promised in the vow should include these powers.

"Unconventional oil and gas developments should only ever happen under a robust regulatory regime, and the Scottish Government takes this issue particularly seriously."

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking involves pumping water, chemicals and sand at high pressure underground to fracture shale rock and release the gas trapped in it. Wells can be drilled horizontally, leading to exploration under land around the site.

Companies looking to develop shale gas and oil would still need to obtain all the necessary environmental and planning permissions but the proposed legislation would effectively remove the issue of trespass at depths of 300 metres or more.

Under the proposals, people living on the ground above a horizontal well extending more than 200 metres would receive a payment of £20,000.

A UK Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government statement ignores the fact most of the powers needed to make Scottish decisions on this matter are already devolved to Holyrood.

"It is simply misleading to claim that householders will lose their say. The Scottish Parliament already has all the necessary powers to decide on application of this approach in Scotland, as planning policy is devolved to the Parliament and is unaffected by these proposals.

"All decisions on whether or not to grant planning and permitting consent for shale development in Scotland remain with local authorities, the Scottish environmental regulator Sepa, and ultimately with the Scottish Government. This means that local communities in Scotland will still have full powers to decide whether to approve or decline any proposed shale or geothermal developments in Scotland."

Shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex said: "Shale gas extraction must only be permitted to happen in Scotland and across the UK with robust regulation and comprehensive monitoring. Too often, David Cameron's Government have ignored genuine and legitimate environmental concerns in pursuit of a rhetoric-led policy.

"Labour is pushing the Government to close a number of loopholes in the current regulation and put existing good practice on to a statutory footing. We will force companies to publicly disclose what chemicals are used in shale gas extraction and to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessments are conducted at all sites. Anyone looking to extract shale gas in the UK will also be required to conduct baseline assessments over 12 months, setting an accurate standard by which we can identify any impact on the local environment.

The Labour MP added: "With eight out of 10 homes still reliant on gas for heating, and with declining North Sea gas reserves, shale may have a role to play in displacing imported gas. The type of relentless hype from many Tories not only overplays the likely impact of shale, but also leaves many feeling their concerns have not been properly addressed."

Mary Church, head of campaigns at Friends Of The Earth Scotland, said: "This is literally legislating for the 1%.

"(David) Cameron and (George) Osborne's blinkered dash for gas risks putting the UK on course for climate catastrophe and endangers the health and wellbeing of communities across central and southern Scotland."

ht tp://ww w.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/ministers-in-plea-on-fracking-plan.1411748798

[NewsFeed]

Fracking will take place below Britons’ homes without their permission after ministers rejected 40,000 objections to controversial changes to trespass laws.

The UK government argued that the current ability for people to block shale gas development under their property would lead to significant delays and that the legal process by which companies can force fracking plans through was costly, time-consuming and disproportionate.

There were a total of 40,647 responses to a consultation on the move to give oil and gas companies underground access without needing to seek landowners’ permission, with 99% opposing the legal changes. Setting aside the 28,821 responses submitted via two NGO campaigns, 92% of the remaining responses objected to the proposals.

The government response to the consultation, published online on the eve of the parliamentary vote on military strikes against Islamic militants in Iraq, concluded: “Having carefully considered the consultation responses, we believe that the proposed policy remains the right approach to underground access and that no issues have been identified that would mean that our overall policy approach is not the best available solution.”

New laws will now be passed giving automatic access for gas and oil development below 300m and a notification and compensation scheme will be run by the industry on a voluntary basis.

“It is essential that we make the most of home-sourced energy and start exploring the natural energy supplies beneath our feet. As the cleanest fossil fuel shale gas provides a bridge to much greener future,” said a statement from the Department of Energy and Climate Change. “By removing barriers to deep underground drilling access, we are speeding up oil and gas and deep geothermal energy exploration. ”

The Conservative energy minister, Matt Hancock, said: “These new rules will help Britain to explore the great potential of our national shale gas and geothermal resources, as we work towards a greener future – and open up thousands of new jobs in doing so.”

“This is an important day for the future of energy supply in the UK,” said Ken Cronin, chief executive of the industry’s trade body, UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG). “Landowners on the surface will not notice this underground activity [usually a mile deep] and it will have no impact on their day-to-day lives.”

But Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: “This sham consultation exposes the government’s disregard for the growing public concern about the major environmental and health risks of fracking. The decision to deny people the right to say no to fracking under their own homes is outrageous. It shows that ministers are putting the greed of oil and gas companies above the public interest in tackling climate change.”

Simon Clydesdale, from Greenpeace, said: “The roar of opposition to this arrogant policy is deafening, yet ministers are determined to blithely ignore what the overwhelming majority of the British public thinks and wants. There will be a hefty political price to pay for this massive sell-out to the narrow interests of the shale lobby.”

Friends of the Earth’s Jane Thomas said: “This government seems hell-bent on fracking irrespective of widespread opposition. You’d think with a general election approaching politicians would listen to public opinion and get behind the popular energy solutions of cutting waste and backing renewables.”

The changes to the trespass laws were also criticised by Scotland’s energy minister Fergus Ewing: “UK government proposals to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to drilling under their homes, without so much as debate in the Scottish parliament, flies in the face of Scotland’s cautious, considered and evidence based approach on this issue. It is also fundamentally an issue affecting land ownership rights.”

In January, another controversial pro-fracking legal change was passed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. The change, which ditched the requirement to notify homes individually of future shale gas operations, was criticised by a Lords committee as having been rushed through without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Fracking companies will still need to obtain regulatory permissions, such as planning and environmental permits.

Earlier in September, the planning committee of the South Downs National Park Authority voted unanimously to reject an application by Celtique Energie to undertake exploratory drilling as a precursor to fracking at Fernhurst in West Sussex.

read full article at source: http://www.theguardian.com/environme...lic-opposition