Fracking: shale gas reserves vastly over-estimated

Owl says: But just enough to desecreate the countryside and line a few pockets.

“The UK’s underground shale gas reserves may deliver only a fraction of the gas promised by fracking firms and government ministers, according to a study.

Research by the University of Nottingham found that early estimates may have exaggerated the UK’s shale reserves up to sixfold.

Last week government officials hinted that a review could be launched looking into loosening UK limits on fracking because shale “could be an important new domestic energy source”.

The University of Nottingham said it had used a new technique to measure the shale gas trapped in the Bowland shale basin in central England and found significantly lower levels than was suggested by a widely quoted study six years ago.

In 2013 the British Geological Survey (BGS) found there were likely to be 1,300tn cubic feet of gas. The latest study found there may be 200tn cubic feet, enough to meet the UK’s gas demand for around a decade.

Prof Colin Snape, of the University of Nottingham, said the BGS’s study had involved desk-based research based on the findings of shale developers in the US rather than actual reserves. The new research was based on studies of actual UK shales, using gas absorption data and field data, he said.

“We have made great strides in developing a laboratory test procedure to determine shale gas potential,” Snape said. “This can only serve to improve people’s understanding and government decisions around the future of what role shale gas can make to the UK’s energy demand as we move to being carbon neutral by 2050.”

It is the second major study in recent years to cast doubt on economic claims made by the shale gas industry. Researchers at Heriot-Watt University said the UK’s most promising shale gas reservoirs had been warped by tectonic shifts that could thwart efforts to tap them. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/20/uk-shale-gas-reserves-may-be-six-times-less-than-claimed-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Government axes ‘pro-fracking’ paragraph from NPPF following court defeat”

“The government has removed a paragraph from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) intended to support the extraction of “unconventional hydrocarbons” following a High Court ruling earlier this year which found that a public consultation on the policy was flawed.

Paragraph 209 (a) of the NPPF had stressed the benefits of onshore oil and gas development, including “unconventional hydrocarbons”.

It stated that such developments benefit the security of national energy supplies and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. It went on to give a commitment that policies will be put in place to facilitate on-shore exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons, including fracking for shale gas.

The paragraph was added to the NPPF as part of revisions to the document published last year.

But in March, environmental campaign group Talk Fracking successfully challenged the new paragraph at the High Court.

Judge Mr Justice Dove ruled that the public consultation on the new policy was unfair and unlawful and the government had failed to take into account up-to-date scientific evidence on the climate change impacts of such development.

He ruled that the secretary of state “did not consciously consider the fruits of the consultation exercise in circumstances where he had no interest in examining observations or evidence pertaining to the merits of the policy”.

“This had the effect of excluding from the material presented to the minister any detail of the observations or evidence which bore upon the merits of the policy,” he added.

Yesterday, the housing ministry announced that it had removed the paragraph from the NPPF.

This followed a written ministerial statement in May which stressed that, despite paragraph 209 (a) being removed, the remainder of the NPPF policies “and, in particular, Chapter 17 on ‘Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals’ remain unchanged and extant”.

“For the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, hydrocarbon development (including unconventional oil and gas) are considered to be a mineral resource,” it added.

In addition, the statement added that the written ministerial statements of 16 September 2015 on ‘Shale Gas and Oil Policy’ and 17 May 2018 on ‘Planning and Energy Policy’ “also remain unchanged and extant”.

It added: “The written ministerial statements sit alongside the National Planning Policy Framework.

“Planning Practice Guidance is also unaffected by the ruling. This suite of policies and guidance remain material considerations in plan making and decision taking for hydrocarbon development and they should be afforded appropriate weighting as determined by the decision maker.”

Government axes ‘pro-fracking’ paragraph from NPPF following court defeat

“Judge who jailed fracking protesters with ‘excessive’ sentence has family links to oil and gas firm”

“A judge criticised for handing prison sentences to three fracking protesters has family links to the oil and gas industry.

Judge Robert Altham jailed Simon Blevins, 26, Richard Roberts, 36, and Richard Loizou, 31, over their demonstration at a Cuadrilla site.

The trio, known as the “Fracking Three”, are believed to be the first environmental activists to be imprisoned for public nuisance since 1932.

Critics have claimed the punishment was “manifestly excessive”. Now the Daily Mirror can reveal the Altham family business supplies the Irish Sea oil and gas industry.

J.C. Altham and Sons is believed to be part of the supply chain for energy giant Centrica, which has invested tens of millions of pounds in fracking.

Judge Altham’s sister, Jane Watson, put her name to an open letter in favour of fracking, which said, “It’s time to give shale a chance” and claimed it would create jobs.

The judicial code of conduct states a judge’s impartiality may be questioned if family members are “politically active” or have “financial interest” in the outcome of a case.

Lawyers for the protesters are trying to overturn their sentences. Loizou’s mum Sharron, 62, told the Mirror: “I was completely shocked when he was jailed, the sentence is incredibly harsh. We were expecting community service or a suspended sentence.

“It’s quite scary that in this country you can be jailed for a peaceful protest.” …

Soil scientist Blevins and piano restorer Roberts were given 16-month jail terms while teacher Loizou got 15 months last month.

Sentencing at Preston crown court, Judge Altham said: “Only immediate custody can achieve sufficient punishment.”

The judge’s parents John and Linda, 86 and 84, are ­directors of J.C. Altham & Sons.

His sister Jane, 54, is managing director of the firm, which supplies ships’ stores, including food, tools, rigging equipment and clothes. The firm’s website says it is a “specialist supplier to offshore gas and oil platforms”.

Three oil rigs in the East Irish Sea – near Altham’s base at Heysham, Lancs – belong to British Gas owner Centrica, which has ploughed tens of millions of pounds into fracking firm Cuadrilla.

In 2015 Jane’s name and that of her firm appeared on an open letter backed by 119 businesses.

It urged Lancashire County Council to permit fracking and create a “£33billion supply chain”.

The campaign was led by North West Energy Task Force, which allegedly received financial support from Cuadrilla and Centrica. The NWETF was later rebranded as lobbying group ­Lancashire For Shale.

LFS has praised Judge Altham’s decision saying: “Justice was served effectively.”

But more than 200 academics signed an open letter calling for a judicial review of the “absurdly harsh” sentence. About 200 supporters of the trio marched outside HMP Preston, where they are being held, at the weekend. The trio’s lawyers have approached the Court of Appeal and asked for an expedited hearing.

It means they could be freed within weeks if Judge Altham’s sentencing decision is ruled unsafe. Kirsty Brimelow QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, has taken their cases pro-bono. She said: “These men should not be in prison at all, the sentence is manifestly excessive.”

Judges are expected to tell defence and ­prosecution lawyers if they feel their impartiality in a case may be called into question.

A spokesman for the Judges’ Council said: “There are longstanding principles, set out in case law, which guide how judges approach possible conflicts of interest. They ensure that when hearing a case, a judge will be mindful of possible conflicts of interest and can draw relevant matters to the attention of parties in the case.”

Judge Altham did not wish to add anything to the Judges’ Council’s statement.

Sister Jane, a former police officer whose husband Stephen is the Chief Constable of South ­Yorkshire Police, declined to comment today. …”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/judge-criticised-jailing-fracking-protesters-13396324

“Government faces court action over ‘illegal’ planning policy”

“The government is facing a legal challenge over its new planning policy, which campaigners say was illegally adopted because the government failed to assess its environmental impact.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published in July, informs local policies across England, from planning permission to town and country planning and land use. It has significant weight in development decisions, from the amount and location of built development to the way environmental impacts are assessed, and also deals with policies concerning air pollution, energy generation, water management and biodiversity.

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is required by EU law for public plans relating to land use and planning, among other things. It is required wherever policies are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Friends of the Earth wants to force the government to undertake an SEA, consult the public and modify the framework based on those findings.

The NGO has filed a claim at the high court, saying the NPPF makes it “virtually impossible” for councils to refuse local fracking schemes, fails to rule out future coal developments, and introduces harsh new rules for wind energy schemes. It argues it is impossible to gauge the environmental impact of such policies without a strategic assessment. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/04/government-faces-court-action-over-illegal-planning-policy

“Buried UK government report finds fracking increases air pollution”

“A UK government report concluding that shale gas extraction increases air pollution was left unpublished for three years and only released four days after ministers approved fracking in Lancashire, it has emerged.

The report, written by the government’s Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG), was given to ministers in 2015, but was published quietly on 27 July. Fracking firm Cuadrilla was given the first permit under a new regulatory regime on 24 July, the final day of the parliamentary year.

The Labour shadow environment secretary, Sue Hayman, said: “The decision to grant a licence to Cuadrilla must urgently be reconsidered.” An earlier government report concluding that fracking could cause nearby house prices to fall by up to 7% was also delayed until after an important planning decision.

AdvertisementHide
“There’s a pattern emerging, with environmentally unfriendly government announcements being scheduled to pre-empt worrying reports by experts,” Hayman said. “The decision on Heathrow’s third runway was also taken days before the Committee on Climate Change reported on the danger of CO2 emissions.” A Labour government would ban fracking.

The report estimated that a fracking industry of 400 wells would increase national emissions of pollution, with nitrogen dioxides rising 1-4% and volatile organic compounds 1-3%. But it warned: “Impacts on local and regional air quality have the potential to be substantially higher than the national level impacts, as extraction activities are likely to be highly clustered.”

“The thing that surprised me was you think the main sources of air pollution are going to be coming from the actual process of fracking, but it is as much all the industry – diesel generators, lorries running up and down roads, and all the stuff used to support it,” said Prof Paul Monks, at the University of Leicester and chair of the AQEG.

The report’s conclusion remains valid three years on, he said: “That hasn’t changed. If you have any industrial process at a local level you are going to get an impact on air quality.” Some estimates of the size of the UK’s future fracking industry in the report reach 12,500 wells. “If you increase the amount of wells you are bound to broadly increase [pollution],” Monks said.

Sitting on a report until after giving fracking the go-ahead hardly inspires trust in the government,” said Connor Schwartz, at Friends of the Earth. “If research is carried out, it should be promptly released.” The most recent government polling shows just 18% of the public support fracking.

“Air pollution is already a public health crisis that cuts 40,000 lives short every year and this report is yet more evidence of why we shouldn’t start fracking,” said Schwartz.

“This Tory government has been dragged through the courts three times because of their failure to tackle illegal air pollution, but they’re still taking a cavalier approach to this public health emergency,” said Hayman.

The earlier government report that found fracking could cause house prices to fall was heavily redacted when a Freedom of Information request forced its release in 2014. The full report was only published a year later after a ruling by the Information Commissioner.

It emerged in 2016 that ministers had deliberately delayed the release of the full report until after the crucial decisions had been made by Lancashire county council (LCC) on planning applications to frack, representing “dirty tricks of the highest order”, according to an LCC councillor.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/02/buried-uk-government-report-finds-fracking-increases-air-pollution

[Tory] “Council invested in fracking company behind controversial planning approval”

“A council which gave planning permission for a controversial scheme to bring fracking to North Yorkshire had at the time of the decision pensions investments in one of the companies set to benefit – the US oil giant, Halliburton.

The Conservative-led North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) gave the green light for exploratory drilling by Third Energy UK Gas Ltd at Kirby Misperton in May 2016. In turn, Third Energy UK Gas Ltd signed a contract with Halliburton “to support its onshore development activities”.

That same year the council – through its North Yorkshire Pension Fund (NYPF) – had £572,000 invested in Halliburton. North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) has since jettisoned its stake. However, it still invests in fracking concerns.

Conflict and injustice

Elaine Williams, a spokesperson for NYCC, told The Ecologist: “We appoint fund managers for North Yorkshire County Council’s pension fund and they determine which investments to buy and sell – decisions which are outside of the council’s day to day control.

“The pension fund committee is completely separate to the county council’s planning committee. The pension fund committee is charged with delivering value to members of the pension fund, independent of council business.”

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT), which is a stakeholder in the NYPF, has called for the council to review its investment policies. The trust is an admitted member of the scheme – it has taken on some council responsibilities where transferred staff still have pensions managed by the council.

Susannah Swinton, operations manager at JRCT, said: “The trust has raised the issue of ethical and responsible investment with NYPF. We are currently an admitted member of the North Yorkshire Pension Fund, which is part of the Local Government Pension scheme. Decisions on the fund’s investment policy and strategy are the responsibility of NYCCPF and are not under the control of JRCT.”

In 2014, JRCT – the philanthropic Quaker group funding people who address the root causes of conflict and injustice – was one of 17 of the world’s largest funds to say they would divest from fossil fuels and reinvest their money in clean energy.”

https://theecologist.org/2018/may/23/special-investigation-council-invested-fracking-company-behind-controversial-planning