Net Zero Watch has called on ministers to overrule the fracking regulator
By Paul Homewood
Net Zero Watch has called on ministers to overrule the fracking regulator which is trying to terminate any prospect of shale gas developments in the UK.
With energy price rises about to hammer hard-pressed households across the UK, the Oil and Gas Authority regulator is trying to force onshore gas companies to seal up the shale gas wells they have drilled.
Net Zero Watch is warning that the government’s approach to the energy crisis remains dangerously incoherent. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is openly calling for increased domestic gas extraction and has brought forward approvals for North Sea developments, while at the same time regulators are preventing lower-cost onshore fields from ever being exploited.
Net Zero Watch director Dr Benny Peiser said:
It looks as though the Government still refuses to recognise the scale of the energy cost crisis. Unless they increase the supply of domestic gas, the UK will be stuck with very high energy prices for good while playing into Putin’s hand. The political price for the Conservative government is likely to be fatal.”
And Net Zero Watch’s Director of Energy Dr John Constable explained that regulators’ remits are making things worse.
Regulators across the energy industry have been ordered to help deliver Net Zero, with the consumer voice silenced. That’s why the Oil and Gas Authority is trying to prevent an increase in supply when households need it most. It’s callous and foolish.”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/government-needs-to-get-a-grip-on-energy-crisis/
One of the major issues here is that Net Zero has been deliberately placed as an overriding obligation in the OGA’s Strategy:
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/regulatory-framework/the-oga-strategy/
Although they say they still aim to support North Sea oil and gas in the short term, it is clear that their Net Zero Strategy will take priority and often preclude this.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Climate change act 2008 is law. It has to be repealed, Boris has a majority of 80. Get on with it!
It won’t happen on his watch, I’m afraid, as he’s already boarded the Year Zero Kamikaze Express and he’s intent on taking the rest of us with him. Like Theresa May before him, his vanity won’t let him look past his ‘legacy’ of a green nirvana rather than the brutal reality of what net zero policies actually do to society. As a newly converted high priest of the UK coven of hysterical climate cultists he won’t change course of his own volition. Are there any patriots left in the government prepared to take a proper stand on this issue I wonder?
A good article in the Telegraph:
The BBC’s bias is making the energy crisis even worse
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/10/bbcs-bias-making-energy-crisis-even-worse/
A good article apart from one sentence:
“Maybe we should be building wind farms as fast as possible.”
And I think he means “as soon as possible”.
It should be obvious that they cannot have it both ways. Provide enough fossil fuel energy (especially in transportation) but achieve net zero by 2050. Net zero requires negative emissions. Transportation requires fossil fuels…renewable biofuels. Rock and a hard place?
When will these “leaders” understand that?
This situation is amazing! Benny Peiser may be the director but control of NETZEROWATCH is basically down to Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) with whom I argued endlessly on his blog about UK shale. The Cuadrilla website (no doubt in response to Kwarteng telling them to plug their wells) has released the true scale of our shale gas assets. The Northern Bowland shale deposit has enough gas to fill all UK needs for 500 years, so how much have we got in the whole country??
Andrew Montford has rubbished our shale gas assets at every opportunity and it is about time he ate some humble pie.
Requiring interested parties and those looking for a future with cheap gas to access a Cuadrilla website is not enough. Cuadrilla need to take advertising space in the printed media. Publicity is what is required not a source of stats. for research. Make Montford irrelevant.
Meanwhile ensure Ed Miliband gets his just deserts by despatching him with a one way ticket to Commie China as Mr Xi’s energy adviser, who will do to China what he did to us.
Can you give a link for the 500 years please? I had a look at their website but cannot find it, and I can’t find it with search engines either.
Further to that: The British Geological Survey says we have between 2.8 and 39.9 trillion m3 reserves of shales gas; without passing comment on how much is recoverable. Satistica reports our 2020 consumption as 75 Bm3. So with full recovery (impossible, obviously) we have between 37 years and 532 years reserves . I read that typically about 20% is recoverable, which would give us between 7.5 and 107 years supply at current consumption.
From the Cuadrilla website:
“It means the 37.6 trillion cubic metres located in the northern Bowland Shale gas formation will continue to sit unused – when just 10% of this volume could meet UK gas needs for 50 years.”
With the latest fracking tech and based on what Cuadrilla has said years ago: there is no reason why ALL of this can not be recovered.
Colin R Brooks AKA Dung: ‘From the Cuadrilla website’, yes, OK, but I asked you where, because i can’t find it. And, big point, your quote says 50 years not 500 years as in your original post. Was that a typo?
Harry
On the Cuadrilla website you should see three headline topics, the one on the left (the only entry in 2022) you should see:
“Government orders “plugging and abandonment” of Britain’s shale wells in midst of energy crisis” you click on “read more”
The quote says 10% of the gas in place would supply all or needs for 50 years and as I said above there is no reason why we can not get all of it 10 X 50 equals 500.
Idiots never eat humble pie. They are too stupid to realise they are wrong and thus never see the need to recant their nonsensical jabberings
How do our rulers manage to get everything wrong?
If fracking doesn’t get a green light at present, why is there a demand to ruin the site and existing well?
It makes far more sense to cap it and put it beyond use for now, whilst retaining the option – nothing more at this stage, of being able to open it up again if circumstances or policies change.
Filling it with concrete is bone-headed intransigence of the first order, and all this in the midst of an energy crisis borne entirely out of the UK’s renewables-led energy policy. You can’t write this stuff.
When the Labour government cancelled TSR2, an aircraft that would have remained a useful part of the nuclear deterrent for decades, they not only scrapped the aircraft already built, they also destroyed the ability to build them in the future –tools, jigs etc. The plugging of Cuadrilla’s wells is part of the same mindset — it’s not the politicians, they are too ignorant or stupid to think of it, it’s those in the civil service who wish England ill exploiting badly written instructions.
JF
At the time that idiot Boris is rejecting the harvesting of our shale resources, the EU is relabelling natural gas as a sustainable fuel in so far as it fits in with climate goals, that is, it acts as a “bridge” fuel.
It is just amazing that Boris is looking to imports of gas from the USA to fill our gas shortages. Where does that gas come from? The shale gas revolution in the USA of course.
“At the time that idiot Boris is rejecting the harvesting of our shale resources …”
Idiocy, it is not.
He is following the Law. Others passed the 2008 Act, and he is following it. The BBC are for it, misleading the public, even though they allow discussion on every other subject. Many in academia shout down any contraversial Scientific enquiry, and label them beyond redemption. I remember threats of being tattooed with “Climate Denier” for anyone even thinking of questioning the Climate Emergency and not panicking!
Until the public see and hear knowledgeable people putting forth what we know to be true, politicians won’t be able to freely choose the best options.
Yes, he shouldn’t have put himself in the position he is in, but a lack of neutral, credible Scientific, Engineering and Business skills appear to be normal in the Cabinet.
Too many want Britain to fail, and NET Zero is the perfect vehicle for that to occur.
Cuadrilla need to take this to the courts with serious scientists as witnesses; Benny Peiser, Susan Crockford, Tim Ball, Patrick Moore, Peter Ridd or any of the number of experts whose papers we have read here over the last few years. It is the only way we can beat the environmental liars.
I recommend Richard Lindzen. His appearance at a HoC CC meeting some years’ ago was a joy to watch. They couldn’t lay a glove on him.
The raving eco maniacs are now running the asylum, or at least they’re trying to. Why were the so-called ‘regulator’ authorities ‘ofwat’, ‘ofgen’ or whatever, allowed such a huge increase in their pricing ‘caps’? Surely a 5%, say, increase wouldn’t have caused the craziness we’re now ALL cursed with. Frack on! AND re-open a goodly few coal mines too.
And where do the miners come from? Ever been down a coal mine? I don’t think too many oftoday’s generation would step up.
Obviously the government’s green policies are driven by green civil servants. The last Chief Scientific Advisor who knew anything about energy was Regis Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, Sir David MacKay, who rubbished wind and solar power. The current Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is a Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Earth Observation Science. So a green advisor who knows nothing about our energy system! No wonder we are in a mess.
The lunatics are running the asylum. With the closure of Hinkley Point B a couple of days ago, nuclear is running at only 5.09GW. When the wind stops, and the sun don’t shine, who is going to give us light and warmth? Certainly not the Fat One, living in grace and favour accommodation and unaware of the real world. The crunch is getting nearer.
I don’t think 500 years is quite right based on the estimates made by the British Geological Survey a few years ago but shale was certainly estimated as being able to make a significant contribution to European gas supplies. By the way President Macron is equally stupid in rejecting shale resources in France. God help us the only politician supporting shale seems to be Jacob Rees-Mogg! Sadly I think we may need a severe energy crisis, maybe after an intervention from Putin, to change government policy.
That is my impression (see my reply above) but Cuadrilla may take a different view. It must be said, if they disagree with the BGS I would place more weight on what the BGS says.
There has beewn a British Geological; Society 608 page report on the government website for a year. That report destroys the government story about dangerous earthquakes and it also gives details about the shale gas deposits in the Bowland shale.
The report states that the Bowland shale deposit is 13,000 feet thick and that the USA shale deposits are between 200 feet and 600 feet thick. The USA has been supplying the world, why not us?
My views on UK shale are well known and much critiscised but I welcome any effort to re-open the subject. Hopefully, this time, conclusively.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Looks like a sop to the green lobby as new North Sea oil and gas projects have just been approved. But gas will be needed long after 2050 if the UK intends to keep running a modern economy, and security of supply in a competitive world is obviously far greater with more home-produced energy.
If Peiser et al manage to get this re-opened the key issue will be the frack level (magnitude). The web has numeroues papers on this subject (all US based) but they boil down to this. A tiny few wells were fracked to magnitude 4. They were all unsuccessful and damaged not only the geology but the wells themselves. A larger numbrer were fracked to 3, some successful, some not. It is reported that Cuadrilla fracked at Preston to 2.7. Even if the gas didn’t flow at least there was no geological damage reported. We all know the government’s restriction at Preson of 0.5 isludicrous. So what is the number? I suggest 2 with the proviso that if the well test is promising it be carefully raised to 2.5, but no more. Before the usual suspects start calling me a barefaced liar etc let me remind that even the best shale wells have low flow rates compared with conventional gas and to produce ten percent of UK demand (cf Morecombe Bay) would require hundreds of wells and they would all have to be re-fracked every six months or so.
Despite the problems you mention, Cuadrilla are clearly keem to get drilling again.
If it fails, that is their problem – that is how the free market works.
Precisely Paul.
Vernon, the Bowland Hodder shale extends from the east of the Irish sea to the oil/gas fields in the North Sea. In between the same geological formation connects one end to the other. At both ends fracking is used to improve the yield.
Please explain why the bit in the middle is uniquely unable to provide oil and gas. Also, please explain how you know this.
JF
The plugging and abandonment (P&A) of the Cuadrilla wells is probably a red herring. Exploration wells are frequently P&A’ed even when there is a commercial discovery. I suspect the P&A request, although bring spun like crazy, may be no more sinister than the usual regulatory oversight by OGA or the HSE requiring that wells at some point either go on production or are capped and P&A’ed to keep them safe. To go on production would require a field development plan to be submitted and approved. As far as I am aware the current Cuadrilla onshore acreage is covered by an exploration licence only.
Considering the level of commitment and drilling needed to go up the learning curve and bring a whole new play concept in the form of fracking onshore Bowland Shale for gas into viable and commercial production will take far, far more time and investment than is represented by the two Cuadrilla wells. The problem is the amount of time lost already due to hysterical and ignorant overreaction from environmental groups, misleading BBC “controversy” arguments and government heel dragging and generally slopey-shouldered and wimpy behaviour.
If you want to rea the official summaries of the Bowland Shale as a resource potential, the British Geological Survey (BGS) has primary responsibility for that to the government. Their report was published in 2013 (that alone shows how much time has been wasted already) and can be found here:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/503839/
A lay summary and other links (including the above one) can be found at:
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/shale-gas/shale-gas-in-the-uk/
Finally everyone please note that the BGS is reporting in-place estimations by what is basically a back-of-the-envelope partial guesstimate. It is expert opinion, but it is also highly subjective and based on many assumptions. Even if the in-place range is reliable, the potentially recoverable reserves are currently unknown. However, based on the US experience, the potential is certainly there.
And I’ll preempt Vernon E’s previous claim (again):
by repeating/rewording my comment to that ridiculous claim from another thread:
The flow rate of fracking and the commerciality of a fracked well depends not just on the intensity of fracking. It also depends on the well length, the number of intervals fracked and the specifics/rock mechanics of the shale target interval. To support Vernon E.’s claim would require us to conclude the whole of the Bowland Shale is homogenous and therefore uneconomic on the basis of one tiny area tested using just 2 wells, the second of which the test was prematurely halted due to stimulating a small fault. That claim is therefore nonsense. In the case of the second Cuadrilla well they only injected 13% of the planned proppant volume and only managed 6 of the targeted 45 stages originally planned.
https://cuadrillaresources.uk/update-on-flow-testing-of-second-shale-well-at-preston-new-road/
The Bowland covers a huge area, a huge depth range and will be highly variable geologically. The likelihood of it not being capable of commercial production anywhere, given the USA success, is really not tenable. The biggest risk factor to potential shale gas commercial development is government failure to sanction/support it and lobbying (lying) by greenies , aided and abetted by the BBC, Grauniad, C$ News and all the other usual suspects.
Isn’t one of the definitions insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
What are you talking about?
Repeatedly refusing to allow proper exploration is indeed insane.