UK Energy

[Witton Park]

Shale Gas is back in the news again and it concerns me a great deal the way that we are extracting this.

I know we have a few on the forum who seem to have good knowledge of these sorts of issues, so I'm coming very much from the armchair punter, who only knows a little of what is on the TV news and in the press.

But Shale Gas worries me - it's thought we could be sitting on 1,000 trillion cubic feet of the gas, or 300 years supply at current rates.

But what happens to the shale when we extract the gas, there must be some impact - it smacks to me of fracking the bubbles out of an Aero. The chocolate may still be there, but it woudln't look or behave in the same manner.

Surely we have much better methods of harnessing the energy around us and here's 3 that I don't think we use enough.

Solar - consistant -likely to be around for a good deal longer than us.

Hydro - we can be sure of rain and gravity - the elements needed and yet 7 reservoirs linked together and water flowing down the system to Horwich aren't used to generate anything.
Surely it must be feasible to generate something from this.

GeoThermal - we have a vast store of energy underneath us and seem to do very little with it.

Perhaps some of you out there that are more clued up can advise why we don't seem to do more and persist with these inefficient windfarms and fracking.

[TheHeathens]

Don't know much about the mechanics but don't they inject it with a high pressure 'sludge' to replace the gas?

[Grouse]

I think the effect of mining in general and drilling into the earth in general is pretty catastrophic and generally underestimated. The world's ruling elite keep us in thrall to fossil fuels because unlike solar power they can maintain control over it; oil is the fuel of war and the world is ruled by warlords and those who supply them with weapons.

[N-dubya]

99% of energy used to run the Earth system originates from the sun

[Grouse]

Yes but most of that (light and heat) energy has been converted into other forms i.e. chemical which can be controlled. Much of it is also extremely concentrated e.g. in petrol so that it is used destructively and wastefully.

[mr brightside]

But Shale Gas worries me - it's thought we could be sitting on 1,000 trillion cubic feet of the gas, or 300 years supply at current rates.

But what happens to the shale when we extract the gas, there must be some impact - it smacks to me of fracking the bubbles out of an Aero. The chocolate may still be there, but it woudln't look or behave in the same manner.

The Shale is fracked using a mixture of sand and water at about 100 Bar, the sand will remain in the fissures afterwards. There isn't just one Shale bed either; Shale is the result of compressing silt and organic matter which has been deposited by an ancient riverbed or some type of swampy creek or lake environment. Marine transgression and regression has resulted in many alternating layers of rock, so any fracked Shales will be supported by other rocks top and bottom and there won't be a massive void where Shale once was.

I'd be skeptical about how much of this 1000Tn Ft3 is workable. Geological events have resulted in a lot of subterranian tilting and distorting of once flat deposits, and geological faults with downthrow (displacement and discontinuation of strata) will end a once promising Shale deposit and make it uneconomical to work. In any mining venture you have what the Victorians called 'dead work', which is non value-added labour required to make a mine produce a yeild. Shale Gas drilling looks to be quite heavy in dead work as the beds are about 2Km down, so any venture would have to be guaranteed to be rewarding.

I think also at the moment Hydro isn't profitable enough for the energy giants to invest in. Shale Gas with its low CO2 and its big potential market is worth a lot more cash, and cash is what counts. Nuclear is easy money but it's too controversial and risky from a PR standpoint. The sun and the wind will always be there for when the gas runs out. I think it's more about profits than what is best for the planet, the human race or the futures of either.

[OB1]

On the subject of gas (although not shale gas) there is a programme on TV tonight.

[ You might be interested in tuning in to watch the first of two episodes of Mega Rigs tonight, featuring two projects in the Dutch sector of the North Sea and the Ensign platform in the UK sector.

The first episode of Mega Rigs will be broadcast in the UK tonight at 9.00pm on Quest (Freeview). It will be repeated on Tuesday 24 April at 10.00pm. In the Netherlands, the first programme will be aired on Tuesday 1 May at 8.00pm on Discovery.

The second show will go out in the UK on Friday 27 April and in the Netherlands on 8 May, at the same times. ]

On the subject of UK gas supply / demand, to put things (including the shale gas strategic importance) in context of our current gas supply/demand:

Today (2011) oil & gas provide 75% of the UK total primary energy. In worldwide terms the UK is the 15th largest gas producer (3rd in Europe after Norway and Holland) and 20th largest oil producer (2nd in Europe after Norway). Yet today, due to OUR high consumption we are a net importer. The UK WAS a net EXPORTER of natural gas until 2004. Since then a decline in UK continental shelf (North Sea) gas output (fields are mature and aging, just like most of us...) has led to the UK being increasingly reliant on input of external supplies of gas from countries like Norway, Russia, Middle East, N. Africa, in order to meet the insatiable demand of industry (including gas powered electricity generation) and 2/3rds of domestic household heating - the latter and many of the former are on 'uninterruptible' supply contracts, because they cant easily 'switch fuel'. By 2009, for the first time the UK imported >50% of its total gas demand. Today the figure is closer to 60%. Pipleines from Norway, Denmark, and Holland bring European and Russian gas to the UK and LNG (liquified natural gas) import terminals in Pembrokeshire and Essex do similar with LNG from Middle East (Qatar) and elsewhere too far for it to be piped to us. Countries like Japan have relied on LNG (from Australia, Indonesia, Middle East) for a long time. Countries like USA and UK WERE becoming reliant on imports including LNG, BUT indeginous Shale gas is seen as one solution to postponing this reliance on foreign gas supplies. In the US shale gas development has been rampant in the last 2-3 years, so much so that it has more than halved the cost of gas on the US domestic wholesale market. In the US the regulation / control of developments has been 'lax', at least in the UK it looks like we are at least trying to learn from this with the current round of reviews, and more precautionary approach.

That's just some facts for background / context. Answering the pros & cons and the long term environmental impact is a different and more controvertail matter. As mentioned, large scale short-term economics plays a big role, just like they do with motorways, airports, high speed train connections, nuclear, wind, hydro, telecoms, and all the other 'infrastructure type' considerations of modern 21st century 'development'. We can all help with small scale energy supply and cutting energy demand, but the Industrial Revolution and 'commercial gains' have alot to answer for the insatiable trend in fossil fuel consumption. How we will meet our 2020 carbon reduction targets / ambitions if we dont embrace non-fossil fuel technology of a range of types remains a key question.