A serious piece from Booker on shale gas brings forward the usual crop of comments, but mostly they miss the most significant point. This is how, from next April, the Government will be imposing its swingeing new "carbon tax" on every ton of CO2 emitted by producing electricity from fossil fuels, rapidly rising from £16 a ton to £70 by 2030.

In all the media's obsession with how fast our energy bills are rising, this is scarcely ever mentioned, says Booker – and it barely registers with his own readers either. But this tax alone will add billions a year to our bills. Within 17 years, it will be well on the way to doubling them.

The wickedness of this is that it will apply just as much to electricity from shale gas as it will to that produced by the coal-fired power stations, currently producing nearly half our electricity, which the Government wants to drive out of business as soon as possible.

View full article here

And he hasn't caught up with multi-well pad drilling. I do love it when they are so far behind the curve!

There is a good summary of pros and cons here ...

http://gekengineering.co...hale_Gas_Developmen.pdf

I read a piece on 'Octopus' the other day and thought - WOW, it will be the end the demonisation cult formed of greens/bbc/MSM anti-fracking and attacking the shale gas industry per se.

Truly, if you can get to invest in shale gas - do it. Cos, in the Sunday Times 16.12.12 - a story in the business pages titled:

"Exxon eyes stake in UK shale gas"

and goes on to say, .



The damn is fracking.................. oops.

Also seems a bit strange that multiple well head and lateral drilling is being presented as new technology, by the industry when its been used for decades in the North Sea and elsewhere for main extraction as well as tertiary.

I can't say I'm sympathetic to the Halliburton loophole - but I sincerely doubt that negligence resulting in third party harm perpetrated by a contractor or gas operator will escape remedy and onerous legal sanction. The EPA have a recent history of unfounded and truly toxic obstructiveness to natural resource development which has more to do with the recruitment of activists than the reality of the developments they are entrusted with regulating - collaboration is a dirty word.

After looking at the nasty catalogue of malarkey pepetrated by Al Armindiraz (see HERE and HERE self evidently sanctioned by higher-ups) - regulation has obviously descended into a brawl with unreasonableness on both sides - but my personal take on it is that the EPA started it by being absolutely anal twerps. The conniving and intriguing of Lisa P. Jackson - Obamah's highly politicised EPA "chosen one" does not inspire confidence in the honesty, transparency and rationality of that organisation.

It seems that once a bureaucracy gets infected with power drunk, politicised, ignorant activist nitpickers the relationship with the regulated heads south. "Green" projects haven't been inoculated or given the antidote either - see this one in the UK.

It's going to be fun watching Exxon tie DECC / UK Environment Agency in knots - a bureaucracy ice hockey match on the cards there.

Edited by user 17 December 2012 01:51:16(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Ha! the Mill business has escalated since the press release and the Environment Agency are being investigated by The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Office - and.... the investigator is a bit nonplussed (staggered even) - The Environment Agency is flat refusing to co-operate.

I think the environmental impact of fracking is definitely there - but has been grossly overstated by the antis. There are half a dozen stone quarries within 15 miles of here - I believe fracking would be much less obvious than those - which the green welly / 4*4 crowd aren't overly fussed about. I think the traffic jams of clipboard wielding jobsworths in leased top of the range hi-viz Battenburg liveried Toyota Land Cruisers will be more of a nuisance.

Edited by user 17 December 2012 02:24:13(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Possibly because environmentalists have become very adept at mounting blocking law suits, tying up projects and costing a fortune in legal fees, in cases that lack merit, only for them to be thrown out after years of delay. It might be better to sort out the US legal system, but taking on the lawyers is probably not something which is wise to do.

I wasn't sure about that ... as far as I can ascertain, it can reduce the need for fracking in certain sites. But in general, I suspect you are probably right.

Strictly, fracking is termed "additional stimulation". You can get gas flow from the more permeable shales, although recovery rates are poor. However, increasing the number of wells driven into the strata increases the flow rate, to the extend that fracking can be reduced or, in certain circumstances, omitted altogether.