Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
Fracking drills won't cause cancer or pollute water whatever the death-threat zealots say
by Francis Egan, CEO of Cuadrilla
The debate about shale gas in the UK can get heated, sometimes overly so.
This week, I received an anonymous email saying that unless Cuadrilla ceased its activities in the UK, we would soon receive pipe bombs delivered by express mail to our premises. "Fracking kills" the
message said, "and so do we".
By spreading misinformation and scare stories, without any credible, verified evidence, extremists deliberately alarm and frighten people. They also seek to stifle debate and understanding.
Some of the claims made concerning Cuadrilla‘s oil exploration well in Balcombe are also very wide of the mark. Let me be clear about our plans: we will spend several weeks undertaking exploratory drilling for oil (not gas). Our work will involve drilling a 6in-diameter hole into the underground rock where we believe the oil is stored 2,500ft below the surface.
If we find oil, we will test at what rate it flows from the ground into the wellbore. That will complete this year‘s work. We will not hydraulically fracture the well as part of this operation. It is worth noting that more than 50 oil and gas exploration or production wells already exist in Sussex alone. Once our oil exploration has finished, we will consider three options.
First, if we don‘t find oil, our work at Balcombe will come to an end. Alternatively, we may find that sufficient quantities of oil flow readily into the wellbore. In this instance, we would assess if a further exploratory oil well is required at another location in our licence area, to evaluate the extent of the oil discovery.
Finally, if the oil flows at a low rate or not at all, we would assess what, if any, technical means might generate increased flow. One such option is hydraulic fracturing. If we wished to hydraulic fracture we would first complete a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, including community consultation.
Next, we would apply for a new planning permission and seek regulatory approvals from several organisations, including the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Environment Agency and West Sussex County Council. This process would take between nine months and a year. No additional
activity would happen overnight.
Let me move on to tackle some of the glaring scare stories that have been spread about activities planned by Cuadrilla and others exploring for shale in the UK.
1. Our drinking water will be polluted with fracturing fluid.
No, it won‘t. Not one confirmed case has come to light where fracking has contaminated an aquifer. The reason is simple: Hydraulic fracturing fluid, which contains at least 98 per cent water, will not flow upwards from thousands of feet underground and through impermeable rock layers to reach aquifers.
2. Nobody knows what hazardous chemicals Cuadrilla adds to its fracturing fluid.
Our fracturing fluid is classified as non-hazardous by the Environment Agency. Information about all the chemicals is in the public domain.
3. Gas flared temporarily at exploration well sites causes cancer.
No, it doesn‘t. Again, this is claimed without evidence of a single
verified case anywhere in the world. Natural gas temporarily flared on an exploration site is regulated in the UK in both quantity and composition by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Environment Agency.
4. Hydraulic fracturing will industrialise the countryside.
No, it won‘t. The Institute of Directors calculates that 100 separate shale gas production sites in commercial operation could produce enough gas to supply a third of the UK‘s annual gas demand. But put them all together and these sites — each the size of a football pitch — would occupy a total area of just two square kilometres. Suitably screened by trees, the sites would be invisible to passers-by.
We rely on natural gas for heating our homes and offices, cooking our food, fuelling our businesses and generating electricity. We will continue to use natural gas and oil for many decades to come, even as we grow the non-fossil fuel share of electricity generation. However, we are fast running out of North Sea gas and oil.
We import about two-thirds of our gas and, by 2030, we will import almost all of it. This gas costs billions of pounds per annum and its production generates no tax revenue or jobs. Developing our own huge shale gas resources, on the other hand, could generate billions in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs.
Furthermore, exploiting shale gas in a well-regulated UK context would result in lower emissions than transporting gas halfway around the world from far less well-regulated regions or, even worse, importing coal to fuel our power stations.
Communities will also benefit financially from developing shale gas. They will receive £100,000 for each exploration well site that is hydraulically fractured, and one per cent of revenues from future shale gas production.
The British Geological Survey estimates there are 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underneath shale rock in northern England alone. If just ten per cent of this gas could be produced, local communities stand to receive more than £1billion over 20 to 30 years.
We know the UK has huge resources of shale gas. The public deserve to know how much of this gas can be recovered and how they will benefit. They also require assurance it can be done in a safe and environmentally responsible fashion. I am confident that national and local government, together with regulators and companies such as Cuadrilla, can and will provide that outcome.
by Francis Egan, CEO of Cuadrilla
The debate about shale gas in the UK can get heated, sometimes overly so.
This week, I received an anonymous email saying that unless Cuadrilla ceased its activities in the UK, we would soon receive pipe bombs delivered by express mail to our premises. "Fracking kills" the
message said, "and so do we".
By spreading misinformation and scare stories, without any credible, verified evidence, extremists deliberately alarm and frighten people. They also seek to stifle debate and understanding.
Some of the claims made concerning Cuadrilla‘s oil exploration well in Balcombe are also very wide of the mark. Let me be clear about our plans: we will spend several weeks undertaking exploratory drilling for oil (not gas). Our work will involve drilling a 6in-diameter hole into the underground rock where we believe the oil is stored 2,500ft below the surface.
If we find oil, we will test at what rate it flows from the ground into the wellbore. That will complete this year‘s work. We will not hydraulically fracture the well as part of this operation. It is worth noting that more than 50 oil and gas exploration or production wells already exist in Sussex alone. Once our oil exploration has finished, we will consider three options.
First, if we don‘t find oil, our work at Balcombe will come to an end. Alternatively, we may find that sufficient quantities of oil flow readily into the wellbore. In this instance, we would assess if a further exploratory oil well is required at another location in our licence area, to evaluate the extent of the oil discovery.
Finally, if the oil flows at a low rate or not at all, we would assess what, if any, technical means might generate increased flow. One such option is hydraulic fracturing. If we wished to hydraulic fracture we would first complete a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, including community consultation.
Next, we would apply for a new planning permission and seek regulatory approvals from several organisations, including the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Environment Agency and West Sussex County Council. This process would take between nine months and a year. No additional
activity would happen overnight.
Let me move on to tackle some of the glaring scare stories that have been spread about activities planned by Cuadrilla and others exploring for shale in the UK.
1. Our drinking water will be polluted with fracturing fluid.
No, it won‘t. Not one confirmed case has come to light where fracking has contaminated an aquifer. The reason is simple: Hydraulic fracturing fluid, which contains at least 98 per cent water, will not flow upwards from thousands of feet underground and through impermeable rock layers to reach aquifers.
2. Nobody knows what hazardous chemicals Cuadrilla adds to its fracturing fluid.
Our fracturing fluid is classified as non-hazardous by the Environment Agency. Information about all the chemicals is in the public domain.
3. Gas flared temporarily at exploration well sites causes cancer.
No, it doesn‘t. Again, this is claimed without evidence of a single
verified case anywhere in the world. Natural gas temporarily flared on an exploration site is regulated in the UK in both quantity and composition by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Environment Agency.
4. Hydraulic fracturing will industrialise the countryside.
No, it won‘t. The Institute of Directors calculates that 100 separate shale gas production sites in commercial operation could produce enough gas to supply a third of the UK‘s annual gas demand. But put them all together and these sites — each the size of a football pitch — would occupy a total area of just two square kilometres. Suitably screened by trees, the sites would be invisible to passers-by.
We rely on natural gas for heating our homes and offices, cooking our food, fuelling our businesses and generating electricity. We will continue to use natural gas and oil for many decades to come, even as we grow the non-fossil fuel share of electricity generation. However, we are fast running out of North Sea gas and oil.
We import about two-thirds of our gas and, by 2030, we will import almost all of it. This gas costs billions of pounds per annum and its production generates no tax revenue or jobs. Developing our own huge shale gas resources, on the other hand, could generate billions in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs.
Furthermore, exploiting shale gas in a well-regulated UK context would result in lower emissions than transporting gas halfway around the world from far less well-regulated regions or, even worse, importing coal to fuel our power stations.
Communities will also benefit financially from developing shale gas. They will receive £100,000 for each exploration well site that is hydraulically fractured, and one per cent of revenues from future shale gas production.
The British Geological Survey estimates there are 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underneath shale rock in northern England alone. If just ten per cent of this gas could be produced, local communities stand to receive more than £1billion over 20 to 30 years.
We know the UK has huge resources of shale gas. The public deserve to know how much of this gas can be recovered and how they will benefit. They also require assurance it can be done in a safe and environmentally responsible fashion. I am confident that national and local government, together with regulators and companies such as Cuadrilla, can and will provide that outcome.
^^Careful, you're dangerously close to introducing informed and researched facts into a highly emotive debate!
To reinforce what he said, below is a picture of a gas wellhead for a fracking operation. Note how much this tiny patch of concrete has decimated the local landscape!
P.S. - This produces the energy equivalent of 5 SQUARE MILES of offshore wind farm, and has done reliably and without incident for decades.
To reinforce what he said, below is a picture of a gas wellhead for a fracking operation. Note how much this tiny patch of concrete has decimated the local landscape!
P.S. - This produces the energy equivalent of 5 SQUARE MILES of offshore wind farm, and has done reliably and without incident for decades.
mondeoman said:
turbobloke said:
Mr Whippy said:
Who pays for their subsidy?
It's somewhat perverse to see reduced taxation as a subsidy.For energy sector subsidies, see wind power.
Well to be honest I'm not surprised, because they are almost universally the greeny basket cases suggesting that reducing the tax rate is "unfair".
DaveCWK said:
^^Careful, you're dangerously close to introducing informed and researched facts into a highly emotive debate!
To reinforce what he said, below is a picture of a gas wellhead for a fracking operation. Note how much this tiny patch of concrete has decimated the local landscape!
P.S. - This produces the energy equivalent of 5 SQUARE MILES of offshore wind farm, and has done reliably and without incident for decades.
Please, wont someone think of the trees!To reinforce what he said, below is a picture of a gas wellhead for a fracking operation. Note how much this tiny patch of concrete has decimated the local landscape!
P.S. - This produces the energy equivalent of 5 SQUARE MILES of offshore wind farm, and has done reliably and without incident for decades.
k all. I despair sometimes....mondeoman said:
Mr Whippy said:
turbobloke said:
Mr Whippy said:
Who pays for their subsidy?
It's somewhat perverse to see reduced taxation as a subsidy.For energy sector subsidies, see wind power.
Should they invest in X or Y, well X attracts a tax incentive, well I'll invest in X then. Oooo they made/lost more money than they would otherwise have done.
Gosh they worked hard for their wealth didn't they... having society take the edge off the risk for them.
Dave
Who, exactly, "took the edge off" and by how much, I want names and numbers.
Remember that its OUR money, tax is just legalised theft, its not now and never had been the Government's money. The Government doesn't generate any income to give away, and as a member of the population I'm more than happy for minimal tax on investments that might help us as a country and hats off to anyone who can capitalise on it. If I had a few thou spare to invest I'd be scrambling to find a way to do it. As as country we'll benefit, and individually there is no reason why you shouldn't invest. It might all go wrong, and if so thats my loss, I'd certainly not be looking for my money back. My risk, my reward.
Tax incentive is taking the edge of your overall risk isn't it?
If it doesn't then why are the government giving an incentive to attract investors? For fun?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Tax incentive is taking the edge of your overall risk isn't it?
If it doesn't then why are the government giving an incentive to attract investors? For fun?
Dave
Regardless of the fundamental difference between a tax incentive and a subsidy, it still seems as though you're making those types of remark within a view that sees fracking as entering a UK energy sector which is a level playing field.If it doesn't then why are the government giving an incentive to attract investors? For fun?
Dave
The government already hands taxpayers' money to wind power operators when no energy is being produced. How bizarre is that.
The price paid to wind power operators for each MW - do you think that's market rate? If not, is the taxpayer duly milked somehow? That's a subsidy scenario, and a ludicrous one at that.
It might be thought that the government is giving incentives to invest in fracking because of a wish to avoid tens of thousands of deaths in vulnerable groups each winter by supporting a means of reducing gas prices, but they're probably doing it because they think it will help to get re-elected.
Exactly, the feasibility of wind power is only present because of subsidy and support from society.
It's questionable then if it's for our own good. I don't believe it is. If wind turbines were popping up without it then I'd say it's a good example of a profitable technology that is sustainable.
So the same can be said of fracking to access gas. If no one is doing it already then is there a business model without the incentives that make it economically viable?
I don't believe any energy source should be subsidised. None will ever be sustainable if that is how we support them as investors won't be looking 50 years down the line to mature technologies and infrastructure they will be looking 5 years down the line at the incentives that pocket them 'free' money on their investment.
The big question for me is, do initial subsidies incentivise investment in infrastructure and generate confidence to then let the business model become self sustainable down the line?
Since subsidies haven't been ramped down for wind power it says to me that it's not ever going to be self sustaining. I wonder if the same will happen with fracking?
Personally I don't like the idea my money is being used to support wind power if it's not sustainable.
That still applies to other energy sources like fracked gas.
Just because it's happening with wind doesn't make it ok with fracked gas does it?
Dave
It's questionable then if it's for our own good. I don't believe it is. If wind turbines were popping up without it then I'd say it's a good example of a profitable technology that is sustainable.
So the same can be said of fracking to access gas. If no one is doing it already then is there a business model without the incentives that make it economically viable?
I don't believe any energy source should be subsidised. None will ever be sustainable if that is how we support them as investors won't be looking 50 years down the line to mature technologies and infrastructure they will be looking 5 years down the line at the incentives that pocket them 'free' money on their investment.
The big question for me is, do initial subsidies incentivise investment in infrastructure and generate confidence to then let the business model become self sustainable down the line?
Since subsidies haven't been ramped down for wind power it says to me that it's not ever going to be self sustaining. I wonder if the same will happen with fracking?
Personally I don't like the idea my money is being used to support wind power if it's not sustainable.
That still applies to other energy sources like fracked gas.
Just because it's happening with wind doesn't make it ok with fracked gas does it?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Exactly, the feasibility of wind power is only present because of subsidy and support from society.
Forget 'support from society' for two related reasons. We have expensive and useless wind power because of taxpayer subsidies, not tax incentives, on the back of support from politicians, not society.Mr Whippy said:
It's questionable then if it's for our own good. I don't believe it is. If wind turbines were popping up without it then I'd say it's a good example of a profitable technology that is sustainable.
Wind turbines are popping up as you put it, only because large taxpayer subsidies make it worthwile. Without taxpayer subsidy, forget offshore turbines altogether and prepare for mass exodus from the market as we've seem whem expensive and equally pointless subsidies for solar power start to be withdrawn.Mr Whippy said:
So the same can be said of fracking to access gas. If no one is doing it already then is there a business model without the incentives that make it economically viable?
Almost certainly yes, the tax incentives appear to represent a need for speed with an election in 2015, energy bills through the roof and an electorate waking up to the folly of wind power. Remove the costly taxpayer subsidies for wind first then discuss level playing fields.
Mr Whippy said:
I don't believe any energy source should be subsidised.
Without subsidies you can kiss windpower goodbye, not so long ago you seemed to be in favour of wind and were claiming it was a good example of a profitable technology when it's anything but, the taxpayer is keeping the eco wet dream alive, for precisely the condition you mention...which is absent.Mr Whippy said:
The big question for me is, do initial subsidies incentivise investment in infrastructure and generate confidence to then let the business model become self sustainable down the line?
Mr Whippy said:
Since subsidies haven't been ramped down for wind power it says to me that it's not ever going to be self sustaining.
Probably so.Mr Whippy said:
I wonder if the same will happen with fracking?
No sibsidies are in place or planned so the question is moot.Mr Whippy said:
Personally I don't like the idea my money is being used to support wind power if it's not sustainable.
Me too, but your position seems to change with the wind 
Mr Whippy said:
Just because it's happening with wind doesn't make it ok with fracked gas does it?
It's not happening with fracking, there are no subsidies and afaics none planned. Read, repeat, understand
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 5th August 17:04
Mr Whippy said:
So the same can be said of fracking to access gas. If no one is doing it already then is there a business model without the incentives that make it economically viable?
Just to add one point to the comprehensive points TB has made above. Loads of fracking going on in the USA, it is financially viable which shows there's a good business model.
No fracking has happened in the UK so far for the simple reason no extraction licences have been granted.
And just to reinforce the fact that reducing tax rates is NOT a subsidy. It is an incentive based on the Exchequer taking less than it might have otherwise. As opposed to giving public money to windmill operators; that's a subsidy...
McWigglebum4th said:
Andy Zarse said:
No fracking has happened in the UK so far for the simple reason no extraction licences have been granted.
.
You got figures to back that up?.
As i bet there has been lots of fracking in the north sea
I know they pump water into wells nearing the end to flush the last oil out... Are you suggesting the oil companies are being naughty?
Andy Zarse said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Andy Zarse said:
No fracking has happened in the UK so far for the simple reason no extraction licences have been granted.
.
You got figures to back that up?.
As i bet there has been lots of fracking in the north sea
I know they pump water into wells nearing the end to flush the last oil out... Are you suggesting the oil companies are being naughty?
http://www.slb.com/services/completions/stimulatio...
in the SNS in the late '80's (when it was painted orange, hence the name)
turbobloke said:
Mr Whippy said:
I don't believe any energy source should be subsidised.
Without subsidies you can kiss windpower goodbye, not so long ago you seemed to be in favour of wind and were claiming it was a good example of a profitable technology when it's anything but, the taxpayer is keeping the eco wet dream alive, for precisely the condition you mention...which is absent.I totally agree with what you say wrt wind, it's only happening because we are paying for it as a society to be viable.
But I don't want that to happen too with fracking. Tax relief is a subsidy in my view. Anything that improves viability of a business model for a private investor is an incentive, subsidy, whatever you want to call it.
We can't let fracking happen with tax incentives just because it's the same as happened with wind power and subsidy.
Will the tax incentives ever be removed, or will society just give away more of it's resources to private businesses to profit from?
It doesn't stack up for wind, and it seems it doesn't stack up for fracking either... unless someone does it without applying for the incentives on offer.
Dave
mondeoman said:
^^^ Then your view is wrong as tax relief is NOT subsidy.
If I steal 30% of your earnings rather than 50% , have I now subsidised you?
Jeez.If I steal 30% of your earnings rather than 50% , have I now subsidised you?
I'm not saying it is subsidy in dictionary terms. I never said it was.
I've said they are all *incentives* to reduce risk for private investment.
Unless of course they are not incentives?
Subsidies are given because people just feel generous?
Tax relief given just because it feels like a nice thing to do?
They are intended to change behaviour plain and simple. And that right there isn't ideal when you are trying to determine if a business model is viable.
It's failed with wind power because the industry hasn't grown to not need it, it is more dependent than ever on it I imagine.
So why will fracking be the same? It'll just be another burden on society.
Unless I'm all wrong and somehow tax relief isn't an incentive to business, and they'll be happy to pay higher rates because it makes NO difference
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
mondeoman said:
^^^ Then your view is wrong as tax relief is NOT subsidy.
If I steal 30% of your earnings rather than 50% , have I now subsidised you?
Jeez.If I steal 30% of your earnings rather than 50% , have I now subsidised you?
I'm not saying it is subsidy in dictionary terms. I never said it was.
I've said they are all *incentives* to reduce risk for private investment.
Unless of course they are not incentives?
Subsidies are given because people just feel generous?
Tax relief given just because it feels like a nice thing to do?
They are intended to change behaviour plain and simple. And that right there isn't ideal when you are trying to determine if a business model is viable.
It's failed with wind power because the industry hasn't grown to not need it, it is more dependent than ever on it I imagine.
So why will fracking be the same? It'll just be another burden on society.
Unless I'm all wrong and somehow tax relief isn't an incentive to business, and they'll be happy to pay higher rates because it makes NO difference
Dave
My bold; allowing society to keep its ill-gotten loot instead of appropriating it is usually looked upon as relieving the burden, not adding to it. There has never been any prospect of renewables being economically viable without the hefty surcharge added to utility bills in the short or even medium term; anyone saying otherwise is smoking something stronger than baccy.
The idea that additional supplies of gas for the domestic market - removing some of the need for expensive imports - could be a burden on society is ludicrous.
Tax incentives to encourage rapid extraction and use of gas reserves are not subsidies, and might even represent a faint flicker of awareness in the political classes that thousands of vulnerable people are dying each winter because they can't afford to heat their homes due to the artificially high price of energy needed to fund wind power subsidies (real costly subsidies) and pay for other expensive, pointless green nonsense.
Tax incentives to encourage rapid extraction and use of gas reserves are not subsidies, and might even represent a faint flicker of awareness in the political classes that thousands of vulnerable people are dying each winter because they can't afford to heat their homes due to the artificially high price of energy needed to fund wind power subsidies (real costly subsidies) and pay for other expensive, pointless green nonsense.
Mr Whippy said:
Jeez.
I'm not saying it is subsidy in dictionary terms. I never said it was.
I've said they are all *incentives* to reduce risk for private investment.
Unless of course they are not incentives?
Subsidies are given because people just feel generous?
Tax relief given just because it feels like a nice thing to do?
They are intended to change behaviour plain and simple. And that right there isn't ideal when you are trying to determine if a business model is viable.
It's failed with wind power because the industry hasn't grown to not need it, it is more dependent than ever on it I imagine.
So why will fracking be the same? It'll just be another burden on society.
Unless I'm all wrong and somehow tax relief isn't an incentive to business, and they'll be happy to pay higher rates because it makes NO difference
Dave
What utter drivel.I'm not saying it is subsidy in dictionary terms. I never said it was.
I've said they are all *incentives* to reduce risk for private investment.
Unless of course they are not incentives?
Subsidies are given because people just feel generous?
Tax relief given just because it feels like a nice thing to do?
They are intended to change behaviour plain and simple. And that right there isn't ideal when you are trying to determine if a business model is viable.
It's failed with wind power because the industry hasn't grown to not need it, it is more dependent than ever on it I imagine.
So why will fracking be the same? It'll just be another burden on society.
Unless I'm all wrong and somehow tax relief isn't an incentive to business, and they'll be happy to pay higher rates because it makes NO difference
Dave
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff