The UK’s energy policy has descended into dangerous farce

The UK Conservative Government is pursuing a dangerous path on energy, which could lead to lights going out next year.

The UK's Conservative Government is preoccupied with what it calls an "over-allocation of renewable energy subsidies". Lest you think this signifies a surplus of renewable energy in the UK, it simply means that the amount of money permitted to be spent on building renewable energy capacity by the Treasury, known as the Levy Control Framework (LCF), has been exceeded. This ideological policy is not based on any scientific or independent economic evidence but on a willingness to please a certain sector of Tory supporters.

The cuts are being made under the cloak of pretending to be keeping costs down for energy consumers. Yet other energy subsidies the Government is doling out include £26 billion to the oil and gas industry this year (this figure is from an IMF report). Coal, the most climate-unfriendly fossil fuel, will receive nearly £18 billion of this subsidy. And most of the producers are overseas.

It is also promising £40 billion of subsidies for one new nuclear power station (see below for more information).

This compares to £9.1 billion due to support renewable energy.

The latest cuts to the (domestic) renewable industry , announced at the end of last week, prevent renewable energy suppliers from "locking in" the level of subsidies they will receive for the energy they supply in the future from the moment they register as suppliers.

This might seem fair enough, except when you look at the government's other actions on energy, and you see it in the context of wider attacks on the renewable energy industry. These include plans to reduce the tariff for small scale installations (as used on schools and community buildings) from 12.47p per kilowatt hour to 1.63p per kilowatt hour from January, and the announcement at the end of last week of the refusal of planning permission for another offshore windfarm (did you think that the Tories just opposed onshore wind farms on the grounds of visual intrusion? Think again).

You'd think that the Government would want to support a successful industry. According to its own latest figures, renewables’ share of electricity generation increased from 19.6% to a record 22.3% between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, due to increased capacity, mostly of solar PV and onshore and offshore wind.

But no. These developments are causing chaos in the industry. They have prompted 13 investors, from the  UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF) to write to Chancellor George Osborne asking them to reverse these cuts. 

The Trillion Fund, a crowdsourcing funding project launched in 2011 with the aim of driving forward of $1 trillion of annual global investment into renewable energy, with 7,000 members, announced on September 10 it would no longer be making any more loans to the industry for the foreseeable future because of the uncertainty generated by the government, and its CEO, Julia Groves has quit.  

EDF Energy as also announced plans to scrap wind farms it was going to build.

Not all Tories agree with the way things are going. There are green Tories, such as Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, who is campaigning to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, who said this weekend that the government should "accelerate not reduce incentives" for clean technology.

The irony is that Britain needs more energy to replace coal plants that are closing. Amongst the recent closures or announcements of closures are the 2GW Eggborough plant, in Yorkshire, which will close in March "because carbon taxes and low wholesale power prices have made it financially unsustainable"; and the 2.5GW Longannet power station in Fife, Scotland, closing because it lost a contract bid. Together, the two plants supply about 8% of the UK's electricity and employee about 520 people.

Meanwhile, the government pursues its obsession with fracking, which is unlikely to produce any new power for many years.

To any impartial outsider, its policies appear to be reckless in the extreme.

Never mind. Having less to do with generating energy supply means that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) can concentrate most of its effort on what at least two thirds of its budget is actually directed towards: finding somewhere to store high-level nuclear waste. 

Yes, last financial year it cost £3.31 billion a year to manage the nuclear waste mountain, of which £2.09 billion comes from taxpayers [source : NDA], and DECC's total annual budget last year (2014-15) was £3.4 billion. But this figure is not the same every year. In 2013/14, 95.8% of the roughly £7.9 billion DECC budget (£7.5 billion) went towards cleaning up the UK's nuclear legacy. [Source:  Cabinet Office and  DECC annual report and accounts.] 

They've only been looking for a place to store this nuclear waste for 30 years, but the problem is nobody wants it buried in their backyard. A new programme of work also announced last week involves setting up another committee – which will deliberate for another two years. That will give them something to do.

Just as well that plans for a new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point C (the first in 20 years, and which will generate even more waste) have been put back again by French company EDF – despite the fact that DECC would love it to happen.  It's also been delayed because Austria has filed a legal complaint at the European Court of Justic

Of course the exorbitant cost of these subsidies – put at a staggering £40 billion by a nuclear expert – would put up energy prices for consumers by far more than the cost of renewable energy.

The agreed strike price for electricity from Hinkley Point C, were it to be ever built, is set at £92.50/MWh, about double the current price.

EON doesn't like nuclear power either, now that the Germans have seen sense and refused to let their energy consumers for the bill for cleaning up nuclear power. Pity that the UK government won't do the same thing. But of course, looking after the nuclear industry is what DECC mostly does.

It all goes to show that perhaps energy policy shouldn't be left to politicians but, just as the setting of the bank lending rate is outsourced to the Bank of England in the UK, energy policy could be outsourced to an independent body of experts. As David Porter, a former Chief Executive of the UK’s Association of Electricity Producers and Chief Executive of Energy UK, recently pointed out, there is "an awkward mis-match between the investment horizon of a steady, long-term, capital-intensive industry and the capricious nature of politics in a five-year election cycle".

No kidding.

Osborne gives tax boon to shale gas developers

The UK’s first shale oil site near the West Sussex village of Balcombe could soon become operational.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has cut by around half the production tax that shale gas developers in the UK will have to pay, mesmerised by the possibility of emulating the success of fracking experienced in the USA.

Simultaneously he has stipulated that energy companies must contribute a benefit for each well drilled of £100,000 to local communities, plus up to 1% of all revenues from production.

Most British oil and gas companies pay 62% reduction tax. Shale gas producers would pay just 30%, a tax break that would apply to a proportion of their income to be determined following a consultation.

George Osborne announced today that shale gas has "huge potential" to diversify energy supplies in Britain, create jobs, improve energy security and keep bills low.

“Shale gas is a resource with huge potential to broaden the UK’s energy mix,” he said. “We want to create the right conditions for industry to explore and unlock that potential in a way that allows communities to share in the benefits.”

Energy Minister Michael Fallon gave a rigorous defence of shale gas in Parliament on 18 July in which he made reference to the shale gas industry’s "community engagement charter" and the environmental protection already in place for the industry.

He added: "The industry has said that we can expect about 20 to 40 exploration wells to be drilled here in the next couple of years, but I am clear… that success will come only if development is done in true partnership with communities."

He also told Green MP Caroline Lucas that planning applications will be dealt with by the local minerals planning authority "in the normal way" and not at the national level.

Friends of the Earth's Andrew Pendleton immediately slammed the move. "Promising tax hand-outs to polluting energy firms that threaten our communities and environment, when everyone else is being told to tighten their belts, is a disgrace," he said.

"Ministers should be encouraging investors to develop the nation's huge renewable energy potential. This would create tens of thousands of jobs and wean the nation off its increasingly expensive fossil fuel dependency," he continued.

A recent report from the British Geological Survey estimated there may be 1,300 trillion cubic feet present in the north of England alone, much of it in the Bowland Basin beneath Lancashire.

Fracking has many passionate opponents. Amongst them is the high street chain Lush Cosmetics, which this week has given their 105 UK and Irish shops – their windows, their staff and their online channels – to grassroots activist group Frack Off to publicise their ‘Don’t Frack our Future’ campaign that has been devised by Frack Off and campaigners at Lush Cosmetics.

During the ten days of this campaign the UK’s first shale oil site near the West Sussex village of Balcombe could become operational. The preparatory work for a 914 metre shale well has been started.

Activists from Frack Off have hosted training sessions for all Lush staff. Tamsin Omond, head of global campaigns at Lush Cosmetics, said: “This campaign will educate tens of thousands of people about the threat of fracking to their communities. With the success of community-led activism in France, Bulgaria, Australia, the United States and all around the world, I have no doubt that we will keep the frackers from our land.”

Andi Walsh from Frack Off added: “Balcombe joins communities at Airth near Falkirk fighting coal bed methane, residents in Lancashire fighting shale gas and towns and village along the north east coast from Alnwick to Sunderland fighting underground coal gasification.

“When it comes to issues like fracking, where human health and our shared environment are under threat, we have to question whether those in power are even capable of putting the interests of the general public first.”

Mr Fallon told Parliament this week: "The Environment Agency will require disclosure of all substances proposed for injection into groundwater that might affect the water, and it will only approve the use of those chemicals if they are assessed as harmless in that context".

Shadow energy Minister Tom Greatrex warned that there was no proof that any shale oil bonanza would reduce gas prices. “Suggestions there is going to be cheap gas to extrapolate the US experience doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny, given the way gas is traded,” he said.

The impact of shale gas upon climate change is estimated to be greater than the use of conventional natural gas because of the risk of so-called fugitive emissions escaping through geological strata.

Picture: Frack Off campaign

Two more finance institutions divest from fossil fuels

Christine Tørklep Meisingset, Storebrand's Head of Sustainable Investments, said she believes the stocks will be “financially worthless” in the future.

Storebrand, a Norwegian financial services group, and Dutch bank Rabobank have become the latest companies to announce they will pull out of the investments in the fossil fuel industry, citing the stability of long-term investments as the major factor.

Storebrand has investments in 13 coal and six tar sands enterprises which it will let go. It said in a statement that it believes these stocks will be “financially worthless” in the future.

“If global ambitions to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius become a reality, many fossil fuel resources will become unburnable and their financial value will be dramatically reduced,” said Christine Tørklep Meisingset, Head of Sustainable Investments.

“Exposure to fossil fuels is one of the main sustainability challenges facing business, so for us it is a logical and necessary step to adjust our investments accordingly,” she said.

The decision was made public a day after a similar announcement from Rabobank, an ethical Dutch bank with a partnership with WWF. This institution, which specialises in financing agriculture and food businesses, has said it will no longer invest in shale gas or tar sands.

It said it believes that the risks of water and soil contamination from fracking, and the risks to biodiversity, ecosystems and local residents, are too high.

It will also refuse loans to farmers who decide to lease their land for such purposes.

The company cited a recent Duke University study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of 414 one drinking water boreholes in Pennsylvania, a location where natural gas production increased by 69% in 2012, which found methane in 82% of samples. The claim is that nearby drilling has caused the gas to migrate into water.

The notion of the future worthlessness of present investments in fossil fuel extraction has been termed a 'carbon bubble'. The term comes from a March 2012 Carbon Tracker report, 'Unburnable Carbon'.

This found that the fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed coal and top 100 listed oil and gas companies would, if unleashed, emit a total of 745GtCO2, which represents five times the amount that can be burnt unabated, without catastrophic risk to the planet.

In other words, 80% of these assets are, according to current technology, unburnable.

Meisingset added: "We do not offer 'ethical funds' at Storebrand. The same high sustainability standards apply to each and every company and sector. This offers an unprecedented level of security for our clients. No matter which fund or portfolio their assets are invested in, the same high standards apply".

As a direct result of these higher standards for fossil fuels, all 13 coal producers in the Energy sector (MSCI All Countries index) are excluded from Storebrand’s portfolio. In addition, the exclusion covers the six oil companies that have the highest exposure to oil sands, measured by both actual production and reserves.

In total, Storebrand has excluded 177 companies and 32 countries for breaches of the company's minimum standard for sustainable investments.

Is promoting shale gas the real reason for Owen Paterson's appointment?

David Cameron appointed several new ministers last week who are suspected of being weak on climate change and green issues. These appointments demonstrate that anxieties from those on the right of the Tory party about losing seats at the next election take precedence in his mind over his previously stated aim of creating “the greenest government ever".

The appointments came in a week which saw stalemate amongst political leaders at U.N. talks on tackling climate change, that could secure us on the road to at least a 3°C rise in average temperatures, disastrous consequences.

This indicates once again that politicians are unable to take the radical action required of them when faced by a threat of this magnitude, but which operates over a longer term than the next election.

We are seeing a similar paralysis in American politics, although President Obama's announcement this week of strong support for combined heat and power, or cogeneration, is a step very much in the right direction. This alone could save as many greenhouse gas emissions by means of energy efficiency as the whole of Europe's solar electric installations put together: a staggering 40 GW.

The position of politicians is all the more startling when contrasted with the attitude of business. As we also reported this week, the cleantech sector is facing growth and prospects far above that expected by business on average around the world.

We also know that this sector accounts for one third of the growth occurring in this country.

And yet our Chancellor, since taking office, has not met with one single representative of this sector, whilst seeing many times representatives from Shell and other fossil fuel-extracting companies.

This is an ideological position completely at odds with the evidence.

It is a position apparently held by the Owen Paterson, the new Secretary of State for the Environment at Defra. When asked by a certain newspaper this week whether he was a climate change sceptic or not, he issued the following statement:

"Defra is responsible for a range of issues affecting the environment and the rural economy. One of these issues is the impact of climate change and the Secretary of State is committed to exploring and developing the response required by Government, business and communities."

Shale gas

It has been documented that this man is against regulation and wind farms as "clearly a massive waste of consumers' money". He has also, according to the Conservative Blog, asked the Cabinet to "end of all energy subsidies and fast-track the exploitation of shale gas".

As we reported on Friday, a major new report, the most thorough yet, of the dangers of shale gas extraction and of the regulations covering it, called for far more regulation and research. It documents eight high risks, and observes that fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from 'fracking' can cause the technology to be more harmful than coal extraction.

In this country, the technology is regulated by the Environment Agency. The man now in charge of this Agency is Owen Paterson. He is both in favour of shale gas and against regulation.

The question is, will he therefore act to lighten regulations to permit fracking to go ahead in the UK?

Laura Sandys, Tory MP for South Thanet, has complained that "Planning applications for shale gas, which I have had in my area, make onshore wind farms look like a walk in the park".

So is to make it easier to exploit the UK's shale gas reserves why Owen Paterson was appointed to post?

Regarding shale gas, Owen Paterson is not alone. This week in Parliament, Tim Yeo, head of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, argued in favour also of “exploiting our shale gas reserves". The Committee has already argued in favour of it.

John Hayes

At least the new Minister replacing Charles Hendry at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, John Hayes, recognises the importance of climate change.

He admitted this week that he is on “a steep learning curve" and catching up by reading the Select Committee's reports, but stated in Parliament that "the Climate Change Act 2008 committed the UK to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050. European legislation commits the UK to producing 20% of its energy from renewables. Those are most ambitious goals."

Sensibly, he spoke of the need to provide certainty to those in, or considering investing in, the cleantech sector. This is hugely encouraging.

He also spoke about reducing demand for energy, another encouraging sign. He promised that his department's Energy Efficiency Deployment Office will publish the Government’s energy efficiency strategy before the end of the year.

Owen Paterson's department is also responsible for waste. I wouldn't be surprised if we will also see the fast tracking of permits for more energy-from-waste incinerators, overriding the concerns of those living near to them.

The fact remains that whoever is in a ministerial position, the Government is committed to the requirements of the Climate Change Act. It is also committed to the agreements made at the beginning of the Coalition. Whatever the beliefs of individual ministers, they have, one hopes, to adhere to this.

Ideology is the enemy of the environment, as we see with the Republican Party in America at the moment. Scientific evidence, and the evidence of the financial benefits of working in the cleantech sector, are its friends.

Shale gas fracking needs tighter regulation - EU

Protest against fracking by Cuadrilla in Lancashire, UK, in 2011.

A new report for the European Union warns that tough new regulations are required for the shale gas industry because of the high risk it poses to human health and the environment.

The study, 'Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and human health', the most comprehensive analysis yet of the shale gas sector, says that drilling for shale gas poses a “high risks", worse than those posed by other fossil fuels.

Water contamination

Amongst these is water contamination caused by the hydraulic fracturing of rocks to obtain the gas, known as ‘fracking’. The report warns that no fracking should be allowed in areas where water is being used to drinking purposes.

Seven other risks are highlighted, including contamination and depletion of ground and surface water, degradation of biodiversity, land, air quality and the danger of earthquakes.

It also speculates as to whether the use of toxic chemicals for injection should be banned in general. At least, it says, “all chemicals to be used should be disclosed publicly, the number of allowed chemicals should be restricted, and their use should be monitored".

It notes that fracturing fluids contain heavy metals and radioactive materials, and that in the United States many accidents have happened which have harmed the environment and human health. There, recorded violations of legal regulations amount to up to 2% all drilling permits, a very high level.

There has been groundwater contamination by methane and potassium fluoride, leading to salinisation of drinking water in the vicinity of wells.

There also needs to be better monitoring of shale gas extraction and “a thorough cost/benefit analysis" as part of a life cycle analysis, to assess the overall benefits for society and its citizens.

All of this is because the technology is novel and the consequences heavily dependent upon particularities of the local geology in each case. This makes regulation a complex issue.

Impact on climate change

So-called ‘fugitive’ methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing, where the gas escapes into the rock and water as part of the extraction process, later to be released into the atmosphere, can also be high and have a huge impact on the greenhouse gas balance.

There have been no studies done yet on methane intrusion into aquifers and in different instances these emissions might vary by up to "a factor of ten", the report notes.

This means that emissions of greenhouse gases from shale gas extraction, relative to its energy content, can be either “as low as those of conventional gas transported over long distances, or as high as those of hard coal over the entire life cycle from extraction to combustion", the report observes.

It concludes that "the present privileges of oil and gas exploration and extraction should be reassessed in view of the fact that the environmental risks and burdens are not compensated for by a corresponding potential benefit as the specific gas production is very low."

Earlier this year, Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, warned that any energy strategy involving shale gas would be 'not the optimum path' for the environment or climate change.

Regulation

Germany is already considering tighter regulation of fracking that occurs near water reservoirs and set to require developers to conduct environmental impact studies, according to a new report commissioned by the German Environment Ministry.

The EU study is one of five due to be released today, and identifies loopholes, gaps, scientific uncertainties and regulatory gaps in current EU regulation relevant to the industry.

As an example, the Urban Waste Water Directive does not allow the injection of pollutants into groundwater reserves. The authors of the report observe that this is likely to occur in shale wells.

Fracking could also fall foul of the Mining Waste Directive, which covers ‘flowback fluids’, or liquid containing toxic chemicals that flow into geological strata and could reach the surface. These are an inevitable part of the fracking process.

The new EU study recommends that environmental impact assessments should be made mandatory for proposed shale gas operations. As it stands, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive does not cover this new sector, and only applies to facilities which extract over 500,000 cubic metres of gas per day, well over what shale wells produce.

Back in May, the new Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, told the Cabinet that it should fast-track shale gas exploitation. He is also in favour of deregulation.

The next step is for an expert forum to address this question in December, ahead of consideration by the European Parliament.

Another report being prepared for the European Parliament and due to be published later this month, also reportedly recommends “a thorough analysis of the EU regulatory framework regarding specifically UFF [unconventional fossil fuels] exploration and exploitation”, and calls on the Commission “to propose, as soon as possible … appropriate measures, including legislative [ones], if necessary”.

Fierce lobbying is said to be going on behind the scenes over the exact wording of this report.

MEP Claude Turmes, vice-chair of the Green Party in the European Parliament, said that, “without any new legislation, there is no adequate framework to protect citizens and the environment from shale gas. We need the European Commission to work on this."

A further report prepared by the industry committee earlier this summer also agrees that large-scale shale gas extraction “may require a comprehensive adaptation of all the EU's relevant existing legislation".

Next steps

The European Commission now needs to decide on its position on this new source of energy. It can either prepare a new directive that covers, amend all existing legislation, this particular industry or offer “soft guidance", the least preferred option by environmentalists, although the one preferred by the Energy Directorate.

The Environment and Climate Directorates believe that more strict action needs to be taken, especially since the industry is prohibited in countries such as France and has been linked to earthquakes.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, the Liberal vice-chair of the European Parliament’s environment committee, said, “There are a lot of potential dangers to water, the environment and biodiversity that we seriously have to look into. I don’t believe at this moment that a single directive for shale gas is the right approach."

Antoine Simon, shale gas campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: “This report silences industry rhetoric - shale gas is undeniably a high-risk activity. It threatens the health of local communities, and the environment, while locking Europe into fossil fuel dependency. These risks are a clear sign that a moratorium on this toxic technology in Europe should be a priority for decision makers.”

Yesterday, the South African government lifted a moratorium on fracking for shale gas in the country's semi-arid Karoo region, which contains gas reserves being investigated by energy company Royal Dutch Shell and petrochemical group Sasol.

A report published earlier this year by Policy Exchange in the UK, Gas Works? Shale gas and its policy implications also called for effective regulation.

Government told: use social media to allay public's nuclear fears

It's not just nuclear: Greenpeace and others have effectively campaigned against carbon capture and storage in Germany using new media, and MPs want the Government to take them on using Facebook and Twitter. Can you see this happening?

The Government is being advised to use independent regulators and social media to provide public information on the risks associated with nuclear power and other energy technologies.

A group of MPs is recommending that officials and regulators use the same communication strategies as employed by campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to allay public fears on nuclear power, fracking and carbon capture and storage.

Would you ‘like’ a Facebook message from the Treasury telling you that it's okay for the taxpayer to subsidise nuclear power?

Because the public knows that the Government backs nuclear power, it regards official messages on the subject as biased, says the Science and Technology Committee, which has been looking into the public perception of risk.

Therefore, technically competent public bodies that are independent of Government are in a much better position to engender public trust and influence risk perceptions, the MPs say, citing the Health & Safety Executive and Office for Nuclear Regulation as examples.

"The public must be able to trust the information it receives on the risks of nuclear power and other energy technologies – such as fracking or carbon capture and storage," said Andrew Miller MP.

"Developing the public profile of independent regulators as trusted and authoritative sources may be one way of increasing public trust and understanding of such risks."

The MPs say in the report that "the evidence shows that around half of the population support [nuclear power], even though it may be a reluctant support for the least worst option. The Government's position as an advocate for nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as an impartial source of information."

Carbon capture and storage

Although most of the inquiry looked at nuclear power, the MPs also considered other technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). As one witness who gave evidence, Professor Nick Pidgeon, Director of the Understanding Risk Programme at Cardiff University, said: "[energy] policy in the EU and UK depends very heavily upon CCS technology working".

The MPs visited a site of a pilot CCS project in Germany, where there has been almost as much opposition to the technology as there has been to nuclear power. They found the underlying reasons for this were “distrust of industry and concerns that CCS would provide a means for fossil fuel dependency to continue".

They highlighted a comment by one of the enquiry's witnesses that campaign groups like Friends of the Earth were very good at getting their message across. They "will pick a very narrow issue, go for that very strongly and throw lots of resources at it. They have embraced the internet and the new media very well," said Dr Andrew Bloodworth, Head of Science, Minerals and Waste, British Geological Survey (BGS).

"If the Government intends to rely on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of emissions reduction strategies, it should examine the difficulties experienced in Germany due to public concerns," concluded the MPs.

Community engagement

While in Germany, they were also impressed by the model of citizen partnership that has been developed there for wind farms. They suggest that “enabling communities to feel more ownership of local energy infrastructure by offering shares in projects could be conducive to building acceptance".

Regarding nuclear new build proposals in particular, the MPs advocate "the further use of current community engagement processes led by energy companies, working with local government and the public, for building trust".

In this regard EDF Energy has recently been sponsoring a series of editorial features in women's magazines. It seeks to portray the human side of working with nuclear power by, for example, interviewing female workers and photographing them in the same style as fashion models.

For example, the last issue of Marie Claire features an attractive photograph and an interview with Sabrina Greenberg, whose age is patronisingly noted as 25, a member of EDF Energy's Nuclear New Build team and personal assistant to the 'client construction and commercial director'.

Before taking on this job she worked, the advertorial says, at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, her LinkedIn profile makes no mention of this, instead saying that she worked at the Department of Justice.

The interview questions include: how much she knew about nuclear energy before starting work, what is involved in her typical day, what her family and friends think about her working for an energy company, what she likes about working at EDF Energy and what she sees as her future there.

Propaganda versus information

EDF has clearly noted the recent market research which shows that women are far more likely to oppose the new nuclear build than men, and this is their cynical response: to use senior members of their own staff as examples of how safe nuclear power is.  How stupid do they think women are?

It illustrates that the distinction between propaganda and objective information can be easily blurred.

This blurring may also explain why NGOs are trusted by the public more than energy companies and the Government. The public sees that when it comes to international efforts to save the planet such as the Rio+20 Earth Summit and UN climate change summits, it is NGOs who are pushing most strongly for the required measures, and governments that are lagging behind.

The MPs' report accepts that the public does not always understand the true nature of relative risk, even when attempts are made to explain it scientifically. It is a difficult issue to get across. This was seen most dramatically in recent times with the controversy over the MMR vaccine.

This does not mean that the public is necessarily anti-scientific, it says. While their level of scientific understanding may not be the same as a scientist, they may be influenced by “other affective (that is, feeling or emotion-based) factors" that are not accessible to rational argument.

This must make women wrong. Shame on them, for responding with their feelings.

In response, the MPs advocate the setting up of a new Risk Communication Strategy team led by a senior individual in Government.

That's all right then: I'm sure they will be completely trustworthy.

Dash for shale gas will not help save the climate or lower prices

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for shale gas, is said to be seismically "safe" in the UK, but critics say it will impede us from meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets and stall investment in renewables. 

DECC has published an independent evaluation of the seismic risks from hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which argues that it is safe as long as certain basic precautions are put in place.

The report, now out for comments from the general public, was commissioned following two earthquakes last year with magnitude 2.3 and 1.5 in the Blackpool area, which subsequent investigations linked to hydraulic fracture treatments in nearby underground layers of Bowland shale by Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. as part of their commercial project to extract natural gas from the shale.

Cuadrilla subsequently provided DECC with a technical report, which has now been analysed by independent experts in the fields of seismology, induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing: Dr Brian Baptie, head of seismology at the British Geological Survey; Professor Peter Styles of Keele University, and Dr Christopher A. Green, GFRAC.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Dr. Baptie said that there is only a "very small" risk of damage from earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing (known as fracking), and the highest would be around magnitude three, which poses no greater danger than that from conventional coal mining.

He said that as long as the four main recommendations of the report were adhered to then there would be minimal risk, adding that there was "no evidence of structural damage from these kinds of earthquakes".

The report was welcomed by Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla. "We are pleased the experts have come to a clear conclusion that it is safe to allow us to resume," he said.

DECC’s chief scientific advisor David MacKay commented that “if shale gas is to be part of the UK’s energy mix we need to have a good understanding of its potential environmental impacts and what can be done to mitigate those impacts”.

He added that the report “suggests a set of robust measures to make sure future seismic risks are minimised - not just at this location but at any other potential sites across the UK”.

Recommendations

The recommendations are that:

• the hydraulic fracturing procedure should include a smaller pre-injection and monitoring stage


• an effective monitoring system to provide near real-time locations and magnitudes of any seismic events should be part of any operations


• future fracking operations should be subject to a “traffic light” control regime, similar to that recommended by Cuadrilla’s consultants


• unusual seismic activity, even at lower levels than the magnitude 1.7 proposed by Cuadrilla, should be carefully assessed before operations proceed.

For any future operations elsewhere in the UK the review recommends suitable actions to assess the seismic risk before any operations take place, including:

• establishing the background seismicity in the area of interest


• characterisation of any possible active faults in the region


• modelling to assess the potential impact of any induced earthquakes.

The report was criticised by Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth and chairman of Action for Renewables (A4R), who cited reports from Deutsche Bank and others which showed that the environmental impact of fracking is "comparable to coal and possibly worse", partly due to so-called "fugitive emissions" of methane from drilling sites.

Government support for fracking would cast "grave doubt" over the government's legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, he said, adding that money would be better put into financing and developing renewable sources of energy.

Furthermore, he said that shale gas would be much more expensive than conventional gas to extract because of the precautionary measures required, and asked who would pay for the damage should anything go wrong.

Joss Garman, Greenpeace’s senior energy campaigner, agreed that "there’s absolutely no indication that fracking for shale gas will reduce soaring household energy bills, while scientific studies suggest that this kind of gas could be as polluting as coal. This would also be a major blow for the British renewable energy industry, which would see investment hijacked by a new dash for gas."

Rhian Kelly, CBI Director for Business Environment policy, welcomed the report, arguing that “shale gas could unlock significant new infrastructure investments, help meet our carbon reduction goals and create many new jobs around the UK.”

But Garman worried that this could be at the expense of jobs in the renewables industry. "Our home-grown renewable energy companies could provide thousands of jobs and develop world-leading cutting-edge technologies,” he said.

Speaking for the industry, Richard Moorman, CEO of Canadian company Tamboran Resources which has permits to operate in Northern Ireland, said that fracking is "perfectly safe if properly regulated", and that in his experience of fracking in Arkansas, US, accidents occurred at a low rate of one in every thousand drilling operations.

He said that it is likely to be at least two years before any commercial shale gas is extracted in the UK.

Other reports are still to be received, including one on the danger of pollution of watercourses from the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process, and, even if drilling goes ahead, it is unlikely to provide a source of gas cheaper than current prices.

The risks of hydraulic fracturing

There are two problems with flushing methane gas from shale, a rock with low permeability.

Firstly, flowing liquids don't easily penetrate and open cracks through which the gas can be extracted, therefore the fluid used has to contain a range of chemicals to dissolve the rocks and create cracks in order to increase the amount of rock in contact with the fluid, and it has to be introduced under high pressure; up to 1,000bar or 15,000psi.

Secondly, this process produces sludge which can clog the cracks, which requires the addition of further chemicals; however, many of the hundreds of chemicals that may be used for this purpose have the potential to leak into the surrounding environment and contaminate water courses.

Their impact depends upon the geology of the area, and each operation would require its own environmental investigation before being allowed to proceed.

If the casing of the well below the drilling platform isn't properly sealed, fluid can leak back up the well bore and reach strata nearer to the surface, which may be used to supply drinking water or feed natural springs.

Even at depth, the release of fracking fluids might still cause contamination over the longer term, should the chemicals be lighter than water and given the presence of geological faults through which they could rise.

Campaign group Free Range Network has produced a report on hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas in the UK, which attempts an assessment of whether the available resources in the UK could make up for the loss of North Sea production in coming years.

It estimates that in order to achieve this “we'll need to find another three fields over the next two decades. Taking the statements from Cuadrilla Resources in the press, its eight fields would require up to 6,400 wells to be drilled – far in excess of the couple of hundred analysed by DECC in their strategic environmental appraisal of the 14th Licensing Round".

It, too, says the price wouldn't be cheap and it would not provide the bonanza some in the industry have been touting.

The engineers' response

The Institution for Gas Engineers & Managers (IGEM) hosted a conference on the subject at Durham University on 28 March, off the back of its report: Shale Gas – A UK Energy Miracle?

This recommends that fracking liquid storage tanks should be able to withstand a once-in-a-300-year weather event. It also recommends the need for one body to bring all the standards together.

At the meeting, Tony Grayling, head of climate change at the Environment Agency, told the audience the organisation had made visits to established test sites and the UK had to learn lessons from the poor management of environmental standards across in North America.

He told the conference that in the UK “there is no significant, extraordinary ground water risk. The water aquifier tables are several kilometres above” where Cuadrilla is planning to drill.

Like IGEM, he recommends that flowback water is stored in double-lined tanks.

"We need to take the risks seriously and the necessary powers, as we are conscious that public confidence is low,” he said.

Huw Clarke, the exploration geologist from Cuadrilla Resources, told the meeting that “our wells are some 7,000 ft away from the water table”.

He added that each well has seismic censors and investment in 3D seismic imaging will search for fault lines, reducing the impact of small shocks.

Shale gas in Europe at the crossroads: are the existing legal protections sufficient?

A matrix of close surface wells for the production of 'tight' shale gas in the USA.

Opinions differ about whether existing environmental legislation is sufficient to regulate the current level of exploration of shale gas in the EU, with a new report prepared for the European Commission arguing that it is.

But this is at variance with another report submitted last summer to the EC, which called for "consideration to be given to developing a new directive at European level regulating all issues in this area comprehensively".

That report, Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and human health also recommended that for fracking, "all chemicals to be used should be disclosed publicly, the number of allowed chemicals should be restricted and its use should be monitored.

"Statistics about the injected quantities and number of projects should be collected at European level," it added.

But, as there is no large-scale commercial exploitation of shale gas reserves in Europe there have, as yet, been no cases that suggest a requirement for new legislation, according to the new 'Final Report On Unconventional Gas In Europe' by law firm Philippe and Partners.

“It is a new technology and we do not have a specific legislation on shale gas, because it is so new," Maureen Holzner, the European Commission spokesperson on energy was quoted as saying.

She said that the new report confirms that, so far, Europe's existing laws can be satisfactorily applied. This may change if commercial exploitation takes off.

The current laws include the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive which would cover water protection issues. The Mining Waste Directive covers other pollution issues, and the use of chemicals is covered by REACH legislation, which applies to the use of chemical substances in any industrial process.

Shale gas in Europe

Exploitation of shale gas reserves in Europe is currently limited, partly because the economics of shale gas in the European Union are still highly uncertain, particularly in the current context of significantly depressed prices as a result of the gas glut.

Furthermore, Europe is more densely populated than the United States, which makes local opposition more likely. At the beginning of the year, thousands of Bulgarians protested against exploration for shale gas because of concerns that it could poison underground water, cause earthquakes and create serious health hazards.

The new study only applies to four countries: Poland, France, Sweden and Germany, and did not examine climate change legislation.

In Sweden, the Swedish Mining Inspectorate has granted one exploitation concession, but this has not led to any exploitation activities.

In France, there is a legal ban on hydraulic fracturing on the basis of the Prohibition Act.

In England, hydraulic fracturing was held responsible for earthquakes registering 2.3 on the Richter Scale in Blackpool last year.

In Germany, at least one company has performed hydraulic fracturing tests, and in North Rhine Westphalia, shale gas activities are suspended until the completion of environmental studies and analysis of their results.

Poland is the country most interested in exploiting shale gas because it wishes to free itself from dependence on Russian gas.

Hydraulic fracturing has taken place there already, and the country plans to begin commercial production in 2014.

A US Department of Energy survey last year said that the amount of gas trapped in shale in Poland could provide it with enough fuel to last for 300 years.

In all Member States, general mining or hydrocarbons legislation covers licensing/authorisation procedures for shale gas projects.

Other legislation related to property, spatial planning or commercial activities can also play a role.

Commercial secrecy and public confidence

Commercial secrecy prevents knowing exactly the constituent chemicals used in franking. This is the area of greatest concern.

It is known that toxic salts, mineral oil, ethylene glycol and glutaraldehyde, volatile organic compounds like benzene, xylene and phenols may be employed and could cause pollution.

In Europe, under REACH legislation, if operators prefer to keep their chemical use confidential, they are required to conduct their own assessment of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and report this to the European Chemicals Agency.

The Agency can then review the report and verify the suggested risk management.

But since the onus is on the mining company to do this accurately, it is open to accusations that it is not being transparent or completely honest. This severely impacts on public confidence.

Chemical accidents are also covered by the Seveso II Directive, under which operators need to notify and report on the substances at their disposal and being stored on their premises.

These obligations differ according to the quantity and characteristics of the chemicals.

The new report to the EC also acknowledges that in countries where different authorities regulate different aspects of the mining process, expertise levels and communication between them can be inadequate.

In particular, it can mean in some countries that the core permitting authority can give the go-ahead for a project where some environmental aspects of the operation may not be up to scratch.

Sweden is held up as an example where this is not the case, as applications are dealt with under the overall assessment of environmentally hazardous activities.

Ultimately, public confidence is seen as key to the future expansion of the industry in Europe.

This is certainly the case in the United States. “If action is not taken to reduce the environmental impact, there is real risk of serious environmental consequences causing a loss of public confidence that could delay or stop this activity," US energy secretary Steven Chu was told by advisers late last year.

There, environmental scientists are worried about illegal discharges. “You just know there's going to be still spillage and contamination," said Walter Schlesinger, President of New York's Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.

Last summer's EC report was firm about the need for more legislation to protect the environment. "The threshold for Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out on hydraulic fracturing activities in hydrocarbon extraction is set far above any potential industrial activities of this kind, and thus should be lowered substantially," it concluded.

What is shale gas?

Shale gas is extracted from sedimentary rock formations that act as both the source and the reservoir for the natural gas.

For this reason it is characterised as a “diffuse” source of gas, i.e. stretching beneath a large area. Numerous wells therefore need to be drilled and analysed in order to sufficiently determine the potential of the shale formation.

If sufficient gas is determined to be present, many horizontal wells from a single pad are drilled.

At this pilot stage there will be hydraulic fracturing and micro-seismic surveys.

If sufficient reserves are found, then commercial exploitation may begin.

According to Mike Stephenson, head of energy science at the British Geological Survey in Keyworth, there is, as yet, no peer-reviewed evidence that frack fluid can leak into groundwater.

Much fracking occurs at depths below other layers of impermeable rock which would prevent contamination of groundwater, he says.

Badly managed fracking has been shown to be the cause of contamination in Wells in Wyoming, USA. This, however, involved a shallow sandstone reservoir rather than deeper shale reserves.

Don't let the shale gas found in Lancashire ever be fracked

Enough gas has been discovered beneath the soils of Lancashire to power the UK for 66 years, according to Cuadrilla Resources, but will it ever be exploited?

Not if campaigners at a new camp have their say.

The mining company's survey claims to have found up to 5.66 trillion cubic metres of gas in the Bowland Shale area near Blackpool, the extraction of which could directly generate 1,700 jobs in the area, with more ancillary jobs resulting.

The company's chief executive Mark Miller said that between 400 and 800 wells could be dug.

This amount of gas is considerably larger than the British Geological Survey's previous estimate of the UK's total onshore shale gas resources - up to 150 billion cubic metres.

Whatever the true amount, which has yet to be independently verified, much of this gas may not be feasibly recoverable, and environmentalists have been quick to point out the problems associated with the technology used to extract it.

This is a process known as a hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which huge amounts of water, sand and chemicals must be injected at high pressure into deep wells to force the gas out.

In Lancashire, Cuadrilla had to suspend fracking operations pending the results of investigations to find whether it caused two earthquakes in June.

The research is being conducted by looking specifically at the geological and seismic properties of the rock strata and shale in and around Poulton-le-Fylde, and any linkages between the recent seismic tremors and hydraulic fracturing operations in the area.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change is due to receive the results of the study shortly, but the British Geological Society says that it is well known that injection of water or other fluids during processes such as oil extraction, geothermal engineering and shale gas production can result in earthquake activity.

Typically, the earthquakes are too small to be felt; however, there are a number of examples of larger earthquakes occurring.

The Hot Dry Rock Geothermal energy research project at Rosemanowes, Cornwall resulted in many thousands of induced earthquakes. However, only one, the largest with a magnitude of 2.0, was felt.

Environmental cost of fracking

Climate camp protestors began a camp last week at Hesketh Banks near Preston, one of three sites where exploratory drilling is continuing, and cite several environmental concerns that led France to become the first country to ban the process, back in July.

Local residents are anxious that drilling will not result in episodes like that which occurred in June 2010 in June 3 in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, when a geyser of natural salt water, mud and chemicals shot out of a well called Punxsutawney Hunting Club 36, 75 feet into the air for a period of 16 hours.

In North Texas, fracking is resulting in a shortage of sand, which has to be mined and transported to the site by the gas producer EOG Resources. This has attracted local opposition because of the air and noise pollution.

Throughout North America, the increase in fracking has driven up demand and prices for the sand. "There's been a sand shortage in the U.S.," according to Mark Papa, the Chief Executive Officer of oil and gas producer EOG Resources. "And so those who have sand or have access to sand can pretty much charge what they want for that sand."

In 2009 in the U.S., the process used 6.5 million tons, a figure expected to have doubled in 2010, when statistics become available.

Elsewhere, aquifer water has been contaminated, and in New York methane has entered domestic water supplies.

Substantial amounts of water are required. Evidence given by the Tyndall Centre to the Energy and Climate Change Committee suggests that "to sustain production levels [of shale gas] equivalent to 10% of UK gas consumption in 2008 would require around 2,500-3,000 horizontal wells spread over some 140-400km2 and some 27 to 113 million tonnes of water".

For all of these reasons WWF-UK and Greenpeace are opposed to the production of shale gas in the UK.

Shale gas and climate change

There is also concern about the climate impact of fracking. This, although yet unclear, is certainly higher than that for natural gas which, when extracted conventionally, has between two-thirds and one half the global warming potential of coal.

Non-peer-reviewed reports from the U.S. quoted by the Tyndall Centre in the above paper put the extra amount of CO2 at 0.14-1.63tonnes CO2/TJ of gas energy extracted.

A more recent study by Cornell University has found that shale gas can have the same or greater impact as coal, especially when the impact is measured over two decades.

The paper concludes: "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."

The paper looks at the impact of fact that between 3.6% and 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the well's lifetime.

The researchers add that "the GHG footprint of shale gas approaches or exceeds coal even when used to generate electricity".

This conclusion has been disputed, especially by the industry itself, which claims the results are seriously exaggerated.

The paper does not include in its life cycle analysis the global warming impact of the mining and transportation of the sand, chemicals and water used in the fracking process, and so the overall impact may in fact be greater. But no study has yet been undertaken that does this.

The position of Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, given in July, is that "it is too early to draw any firm conclusions regarding the climate and environmental impacts of possible future shale gas exploitation in Europe".

She said that the environmental and commercial viabilities of potential shale gas sources still need to be established, and that the Commission is monitoring the situation in order to minimise potential environmental and climate impacts of shale gas exploration and production.

The Government's wait-and-see approach

The British Government is also adopting a neutral position. In answer to a Parliamentary Question in July from Green MP Caroline Lucas, Charles Hendry, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, said that he had "made no assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas related extraction: emissions from shale gas extraction processes will be determined by the design and conditions of a particular development and no development has been proposed for the UK."

Answering another question from Conservative MP Laurence Robertson, Mr. Hendry said the Government will "continue to encourage the energy industry to maximise indigenous oil and gas production and infrastructure opportunities".

In a separate debate on energy, Hendry's opinion was that the fracking fluid "is 99% water and the majority of the remainder is an inert soapy-type compound", and that he was satisfied with the environmental controls that were in place to cover the methane's extraction.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee issued the results of their investigations into shale gas in May.

MPs said that the technique does not pose a direct risk to underground water aquifers, provided that the well to be hydraulically fractured is constructed properly.

Their report also expressed satisfaction that existing environmental regulations and enforcement would prevent leaks of methane from wells or pipelines, based on advice from the Environment Agency.

But MPs did express concern that a concentration on shale gas could "divert investment away from renewable technologies like solar, wind, wave or tidal power".

They concluded that although it has less global warming impact than coal, shale gas "will not be sufficient to meet long term emissions reductions targets and avoid the worst effects of global climate disruption".

Given that Chris Huhne signalled this week that he wants to minimise the construction of more gas-burning power stations unless they also include carbon capture and storage, then this may, at least, limit the domestic market for shale gas, even if Cuadrilla overcomes local opposition and receives planning and environmental consents for further drilling.

Which locals and those campers are not going to let happen if they can help it.