Tuesday 14 May 2013

Fracktious

In comments the other day, the subject of Gasland flickered briefly and BQ suggested it deserved a post.

It's hardly new: but perhaps it is getting a second wind as drilling for shale gas is set to re-commence around Britain.  We heralded the potential significance of shale to the economy when the first UK discovery was announced (and discussed it many times since), and it is fast becoming a political dividing-line. From a basic C@W standpoint there is the obvious 'what's not to like?' angle, countered by the inevitable CiF chorus of 'gas = hydrocarbon = wicked'.

In fact it has even more dramatic potential than that.  The whole UK / EU decarbonisation policy hinges on the prices of hydrocarbon fuels rising indefinitely: it is, as someone said recently, a gigantic speculative long position.  But hey, prices go down as well as up, and (as we they used to say at Enron) - if in doubt, go short.  A lot of greenies know this and are likely to get very agitated - and if drilling does indeed re-commence on a serious scale, there will be no end of sites at which NoDashForGas can make a serious nuisance of themselves.

Anyhow: you may be seeing Gasland again on a screen near you, and here's what I said in the comments.
Gasland  is a rather well-made piece of pure polemic, quite easy on the eye and very beguiling for people who are in the market for an anti-energy diatribe.  It is very cavalier (and sometimes outright dishonest) in its use of facts, and full of crafty non-sequiturs which any logician would spot, even if they knew nothing of the detail.

Also, it has bugger-all to do with fracking (which is one of its main non-seqs) - it starts on fracking right enough, but about one-third of the way in then seamlessly segues into just an attack on the practices of the US natural gas industry in general.  Somehow, people come away thinking they've seen a devastating case against fracking, but they haven't.

For completeness, let it be said that in some states of the USA there are virtually no environmental regulations at all (or if any, they are not enforced) and so there is a solid body of entirely legitimate attack that can be made on some genuine ongoing life-threatening health-hazards that would not be tolerated anywhere else this side of China.  (If anyone disputes this I invite them to move with their families and live in the environs of the refinery belt at the Houston Ship Channel. No? Thought not)

Gasland's valid hits are scored on this ground - but again, this has very little to do with fracking.

ND

14 comments:

Blue Eyes said...

Britain didn't get successful on the back of environmental paranoia.

I'm not saying we should deliberately burn everything in the immediate term, but wouldn't a cheap-gas-led industrial revival stand us in good stead to go properly green in the medium to long term?

What worries me about the anti-carbon extremists is that they think that the world can just magic the technology into existence by setting some boundary conditions. Or maybe they realise they cannot but don't care about the effect on living standards.

Either way, let's get on with it.

rwendland said...

I've not seen Gasland - I expect simplifications and inaccuracies would be just too annoying - but it does seem like Cuadrilla have made a plot submission for Gasland II.

Charles Hendry/FOIA has revealed that Cuadrilla's test borehole was damaged by the small earthquake it caused "deformed the casing on its well", but Cuadrilla failed to inform the authorities about that for six months. A great plot idea for an untrustworthy gas company. On top of a diabolical PR operation, this makes Cuadrilla look very Texan, rather than a modern open regulated company!

Hendry's comment on that was "Cuadrilla is very aware of what it needs to do in terms of public and government acceptance, ... If they haven't got the best practice they won't be going ahead." Hope Hendry's replacement remembers this.

Graeme said...

but...but...Yoko Ono thinks it one of the most inspiring films she has ever seen!

Bill Quango MP said...

Its all kicking off again with Gasland 2 and Fracknation.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2013/04/gasland-vs-fracknation-josh-fox-refuses-to-debate-phelim-mcaleer/

I did a film study class once of Hollywood documentary making. Mississippi Burning and JFK, two brilliant to watch, superbly acted and quite shocking films, that are still considered some of the worst examples of manipulative documentary film making ever made.

The professor left the audience in no doubt that documentary makers should not be allowed to get away with fiction being called fact, or burying inconvenient truths under the guise of 'artistic licence.'
He was all in favour of making such movies in a Michael Moore vein. But 100% against allowing them to be called anything other than entertainment that raises some important questions.

hovis said...

I'm not such a fan of fracking, I find it all rather Cornucopian and the benefits over played.

To reserves - are these settled or like Poland are they going to halve once anything gets going and then calls for subsidies?

Ground water contamination: Objections are always condescendingly suggested that there is nothing to worry - essentially trust me I'm an expert. Bollocks to that are yougoing to drink the water? No if not then f*** f** and dont whine about nimbies. You are just talking things up for your own pecunary advantage. In the case of Aquifers even if the risk is small once contaminated they can't be cleaned. The last few years have again shown how bad we are at assesing tail risk.

Incedentally do you truly think there is it is agood idea to frack next door to the Balcombe reservoir?

Logistics - can you truly beleive the amount of hardware /equipment that is used in the states will be passively bourne in the UK?

Finally the US experience has only affected US gas prices as theyt are banned from exporting. Even if going ahead who acrues the benefits and are they truly as large suggested?


I remain to be convinced, all I am seeing is lobbying.

Perhaps Carbon Dioxide rather than water may offer a different but i would need more information.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Gasland is tendentious, mendacious nonsense, superbly debunked by Phelim Mc-athingy. I'm surprised you're giving it house room.

Graeme said...

the view from hovis - don't tell me the facts; just let me whine about my prejudices.

Blue Eyes said...

Great article (on the BBC website no less!) today saying how the US is soon to become a net exporter of oil and pretty much self-sufficient in energy overall.

Sounds awful. We should such technology here forthwith.

Hovis would like the article, it appears to accidentally describe methane as a waste product.

Blue Eyes said...

Damn, missed out the word "ban" in the second para.

Disclosure: I am an enthusiastic user of energy.

hovis said...

Graeme - thank you I find the pro lobby has more than enough of its own prejudices and pretends to itself that they are "realists".

Trite insults apart, - so you don't beleive there is any debate over the trade off over Fracking at all?

Graeme said...

Hovis, in La Brea, Los Angeles, there is a tar-pit that reaches the surface and that still belches out gas bubbles. I drank the water in LA quite happily.

There are onshore oil wells in the UK; I drink water in the UK. There are or were dozens of big holes through the aquifers where men used to descend to hack out coal, thereby liberating methane and other gases....I still drink tap-water in the UK.

If appropriate procedures are followed, I do not see why fracking should be any different. The only question is whether it is economically viable. North Sea oil and gas are still viable despite the massive regulatory costs and taxes. I would expect fracking to be equally viable.

Nick Drew said...

IMO it's right to be demanding stringent standards - but these can be met with just ordinary good practices. If the amounts of gas in the ground are as big as is being claimed, the cost of doing the job properly will be handsomely rewarded

(there is definitely an issue here because as I wrote, there are shocking cases in the US, and it's often the same people... if you don't make 'em do it right, they won't)

the benefits and are they truly as large suggested? - Ohhhh yes! US industries that were out for the count have bounced back dramatically on a diet of cheap gas.

And, as I continually point out, we have already imported shale gas, in the form of LNG cargos already arrived in US waters (under long-term import contracts signed before North America became self-sufficient), and diverted to UK when the spot-price here was rising in bad winter periods - definitely flattening what would otherwise have been sharper price-spikes

like BE, we are all enthusiastic energy consumers

assurance auto said...

Fractious . really this topic can attract a lot of visitors to know what is the essential reason behind that. this is very good and very interesting .''""Gasland is a rather well-made piece of pure polemic, quite easy on the eye and very beguiling for people who are in the market for an anti-energy diatribe. It is very cavalier (and sometimes outright dishonest) in its use of facts, and full of crafty non-sequiturs which any logician would spot, even if they knew nothing of the detail."""

Agence communication said...

we said "" n fact it has even more dramatic potential than that. The whole UK / EU decarbonisation policy hinges on the prices of hydrocarbon fuels rising indefinitely: it is, as someone said recently, a gigantic speculative long position. But hey, prices go down as well as up, and (as we they used to say at Enron) - if in doubt, go short. A lot of greenies know this and are likely to get very agitated - and if drilling does indeed re-commence on a serious scale, there will be no end of sites at which NoDashForGas can make a serious nuisance of themselves.
""