Beyond Fracking: the Next Steps in the 'Extreme Energy' Debate in Britain
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Beyond Fracking: the next steps in the 'extreme energy' debate in Britain Paul Mobbs Mobbs' Environmental Investigations http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ Swalcliffe Grange, North Oxfordshire, December 2012 Do our conceptions of “fracking” Paul Mobbs, 2011 encompass its 'reality'? Pro-Publica, 2008 There are many ignored issues... here's one: The 'strategic environmental appraisal' (SEA) report produced by DECC outlined a scenario for the 14th Round PEDL licences. What the report considered was only a superficial set of environmental impact parameters... There are many ignored issues... here's one: If we use the SEA data, and then add information for the likely effluent quality, it is possible to calculate the levels of waste generation omitted from the SEA report. There are many ignored issues... here's one: The Government uses a higher gas production per well compared to US data. On the SEA's figures only 0.5% to 10% of the resource is produced; more realistic data would indicate 0.2% to 4%. These new figures represent a 2½ times increase – but may be two or four times more with higher recovery. The Mackay- Stone report: The Government justifies the “low carbon” qualities of shale gas with reference to DECC's 2013 report, Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use. Question is, are the data and assumptions in the report valid? The Mackay- fugitive emissions emissions per per well Stone report: = unit of gas gas production per well Mackay & Stone's Source: Low High figures in results are arguably Mackay/Stone 2 5 billion cu. feet one quarter of the USGS 0.03 2.8 values produced USDoE 1.4 1.8 when using more Paper figures accepted Paper rejected as “outlier” representative data. Stephenson et al (2011) 0.60% EPA (2011) 3.00% Their calculations O©Sullivan and Paltsev (2012) 0.60% Miller et al (2013) 3.00% are correct – it's Cathles et al (2012) 0.90% Petron et al (2014) 3.00% the statistics they Burnham et al (2011) 1.30% Howarth et al. (2011) 3.30% use which are EPA (2013) 1.65% Petron et al (2012) 4.00% questionable. Jiang et al (2011) 2.00% Karion et al (2013) (NOAA) 5.50% EPA (2012) 2.30% NOAA et al (2013) 9.00% Hultman et al. (2011) 2.80% Jester's Hill, North Oxfordshire, December 2012 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 PRIMARY ENERGY PRIMARY 1915 Commodity imports production Indigenous UK Primary EnergySupply &projections to to 2013, –1915 UK Primary 2035 Natural gasNaturalexport gas Natural import power Electrical importCoal 1930 1945 Renewable exports Renewable Renewable import Renewable Petroleumimport energy consumption energy 1960 primary Total Total consumption (PJ) Total exportCoal Coal gasNaturalimport 1975 1990 DECC statistics DECC Petroleumexport Petroleum Nuclearimport 2005 2014 projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 COAL 1915 Commodity imports production Indigenous 1930 peaks~1923/4 coalproduction Coal importCoal 1945 energy consumption energy Coal 1960 primary Total Coal exportCoal 1975 strike Total consumption (PJ) Total 1990 DECC statistics DECC 2005 2014 combustion directive production plants ~20%of projections supply UK DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 PETROLEUM 1915 Commodity imports production Indigenous Petroleumimport 1930 1945 Persian Gulf imports Petroleum energy consumption energy 1960 primary Total peaks1999 production Petroleumexport 1975 Piper Alpha Piper 50%imports? 1990 2014 – Total consumption (PJ) Total DECC statistics DECC 2005 2014 projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 NATURAL GAS NATURAL Indigenous production Indigenous 1915 Commodity imports Natural gasNaturalimport 1930 1945 Natural gas Natural energy consumption energy liberalisation 1960 primary Total peaks ~2002/3 Natural gasNaturalexport production 1975 201350% – 1990 imports Total consumption (PJ) Total DECC statistics DECC 2005 2014 projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 NUCLEAR Indigenous production Indigenous 1915 Commodity imports 1930 Nuclearimport henceallnuclear power is 'imported' havewe noviable resourceuranium – 1945 CalderHall 1956 energy consumption energy Electrical power import power Electrical Magnox 1960 primary Total 1960s 1970s 1975 AGR Total consumption (PJ) Total PWR 1990 1995 DECC statistics DECC 2005 2014 'new build' 'new projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 RENEWABLE Indigenous production Indigenous 1915 Commodity imports Renewable import Renewable 1930 was from 'waste' – and 10% liquid biofuels liquid 'waste' was 10% –and from energy of renewable over one-third just 2013 in 1945 Renewable energy consumption energy 1960 primary Total recessionssave more carbon emissionsthanrenewable Renewable exports Renewable energy does energy does 1975 1990 DECC statistics DECC Total consumption (PJ) Total 2005 2014 mostly wind mostly & & biofuels projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 Putting it all back together... PRIMARY ENERGY PRIMARY 1915 Commodity imports production Indigenous Natural gasNaturalexport gas Natural import power Electrical importCoal 1930 1945 Renewable exports Renewable Renewable import Renewable Petroleumimport energy consumption energy 1960 primary Total Total consumption (PJ) Total exportCoal Coal gasNaturalimport 1975 1990 DECC statistics DECC Petroleumexport Petroleum Nuclearimport 2005 2014 projections DECC DECC 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 1915 CYCLES ☺ Natural gasNaturalexport gas Natural import power Electrical importCoal 1930 1945 post-colonial post-colonial Renewable exports Renewable Renewable import Renewable Petroleumimport decline realignment 1960 political political ☹ Total consumption (PJ) Total exportCoal Coal gasNaturalimport 1975 boom-bust boom-bust ☺ resource resource 1990 cycle ☹ Petroleumexport Petroleum Nuclearimport 2005 2014 next? what 2035 Primary Energy Consumption, PJ/year 12,000 8,000 3,000 7,000 2,000 0 SHALE GAS SHALE Indigenous production Indigenous 1915 Commodity imports Natural gasNaturalexport gas Natural import power Electrical importCoal 1930 1945 Renewable exports Renewable Renewable import Renewable Petroleumimport energy consumption energy 1960 primary Total Unconventionalgas exportCoal Coal gasNaturalimport 1975 1990 DECC statistics DECC Total consumption (PJ) Total Petroleumexport Petroleum Nuclearimport 2005 2014 gas estimates gas OFGEM shale projections DECC DECC 2035 Oil production, bld And shale oilwhat about US production? 1,500,000 3,000,000 4,500,000 6,000,000 0 Jan-07 Bakken Haynesville Niobrara Utica Jan-08 Jan-09 Rig count Rig Ford Eagle Marcellus Permian Jan-10 ~3 years ~3 years Jan-11 ~3 years ~3 ~3 ~3 years Jan-12 years years Approx. 3Approx. Jan-13 ½ ½ Jan-14 years Jan-15 May-150 400 800 1,200 1,600 Rig count Oil production, mtoe oil Is US shale oil”? delaying “peak 3,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 0 Saudi Arabia Saudi Canada Bottom 10% 1965 'As is' BP data is' BP 'As Rolling 3 year av. 3 year Rolling China states) (11 Next 15% 1975 1985 US (8 states) Next 25% 1995 Russian Federation Russian Iran 2005 2013 Oil production, mtoe Is shale oiloil”? US “peak delaying 3,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 0 Saudi Arabia Saudi Canada Bottom 10% 1965 data less US/Canadian 'unconventional'BP New rolling 3 year av. 3 year rolling New China states) (11 Next 15% 1975 1985 Rolling 3 year av. 3 year Rolling US (8 states) Next 25% 1995 Russian Federation Russian Iran 2005 2013 Tadmarton Heath, North Oxfordshire, December 2012 'The Fracking Organogram' May 2013 To understand what “fracking” is about we have to look – beyond technology... beyond statistics... – at the political framework within which this evidence is considered. KEY Relationships: Aurora investors finance/ Energy PEDL Resources funding management partnership consultants US 'great & the good' investors Daniel Yergin of politics & diplo government secretary Guardian NW Westbourne Communications Burson-Marsteller Lexington Communications macy in the USA, Vigo Communications Dart Europa Open Energy policy PEDLs Cuadrilla fossil fuels UK and EU Task PR Energy Egdon consultancy Atlantic Porton Letter Oil & Gas Riverstone Force lobbying PEDLs Resources Partnership Group Hill & Knowlton Bell Pottinger Big consultancy ongoing 'The Reach Policy Gas senior Society Energy Dow merger/takeover academic 43 other Conservatives Edelman FTI Consulting IPAA Fishburn Hedges Polish CSG of UK assets Exchange Works? Bank secretariat in Depth partnership PEDLs lapsed Coal exploration vice 2012 previous licences UCG Mine ventures president public secretariat Weir connections & Weber Shandwick IGas PEDLs licences Methane Simon Nayyar relations Group 3 Legs fields PR/lobbyists the label on the line states Energy & UK Conservative Party group Task the nature of the relationship Resources Ben Moxham UCG Shale APPG fields Onshore publicity/candidate Force on partnership energy & climate Associ- Gas Unconventional Energy Centre Halliburton Entities: Alkane advisor 2010-13 Operators Newgate Communications Huntsworth Shale partnership PEDLs ation Europe Oil and Gas UK Forum people Energy Group Gas Frackogram funding/ funding membership/ Petrobras members funding secretariat funding corporate INEOS policy group PEDLs lobby/PR Statoil 2015' group agencies/ Magellan regulators Petroleum chief associate managing