This happened last Saturday December 1st, but I just now became aware of it. From their website the photo looks like a lot of people, but the video that follows shows it to be a rather modest affair.
I think they might be a bit unclear on the concept:
Thank you to everyone who turned out on one of the coldest days this year. With our 7.2m fracking rig, we took a clear message to Parliament – “No Fracking in the UK”, a message backed up by other actions around the country, and one that was picked up by the BBC (see here and here) amongst others. Not only that but there could hardly have been a more critical moment to stage a conspicuous show of opposition to the the government’s unfolding plans for an expansion of fracking and a new dash for gas.
And what did they do to warm up afterwards? Chances are they went to a nice fossil fuel (gas) heated pub or their home.
From the video, it looks like there might be 200-300 people at this “national” event standing out in the cold.
I wonder what sort of yelling we’d hear if they couldn’t retreat to a nice warm place afterwards, and they were forced to stay out in the cold for a few days to experience firsthand what they preach?
h/t to Fay Kelly-Tuncay via facebook
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Silver Ralph:
Your post at December 10, 2012 at 7:49 am demonstrates that you will insist on continuing to distract this thread with your ‘peak oil’ nonsense and demonstrations of your ignorance of energy issues in general.
Peak UK coal happened long ago but world coal production, coal reserved and coal utilisation continue unabated. Coal – like oil – is fungible and is traded worldwide.
This thread is about the UK needing to adopt fracking as a method to continue its indigenous energy supply for reasons of energy security and balance of payments. (On the basis of your contributions to this thread, I suspect you cannot understand those issues any more than the other issues on which you have proclaimed your ignorance).
Richard
Silver Ralph
note for you here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/uk-endures-coldest-autumn-since-1993/#comment-1168878
Silver Ralph,
“But if we don’t find an alternative, and we do hit Peak Oil (peak production rates),”
This will never ever happen. There is more than enough oil in the ground for production rates to continue to increase no mater what the cost until a less expensive alternative is found.
The vast majority of oil consuption is through use as liquid vehicle fuel. Peak oil won’t happen until an alternative liquid vehicle fuel is found that is less expensive to produce than the next barrel of oil. But if such a alternative exists peak oil is a meaningless non crisis.
Given the current crop of potential alternatives, oil will likely have to hit $300 – $400 dollars (US) per barrel to even get close.
Your own example of UK coal stands as proof of my point. It peaked not because there wasn’t any more coal available in the UK but because more economical alternatives were available.
vukcevic says: December 10, 2012 at 9:56 am
Silver Ralph note for you here:
________________________________
Sorry Vuk, but I am not sure I need to appologise for that one.
You are presumably a scientist, who has to present the results of his work in order to get further funding (or to gain further support for the arguments you are making). Yet I have not clearly understood one of your graphs.
If I were in government, and you a science advisor, I would dismiss you immediately, because you cannot present your work clearly to the layman. Your work may be the most revolutionary and important in the entire world, perhaps it is, but I would be none the wiser.
So, just as a word of advice – dont entangle two plots on a graph that have different axes, and then entangle another couple of plots on the same graph that also have different axes. You are simply asking for trouble. That I was muddled is of no consequence for you, but had I been a potential benifactor and funder of your work, you could have lost a nice fat contract.
.
richardscourtney says: December 10, 2012 at 9:40 am
a. You will insist on continuing to distract this thread with your ‘peak oil’ nonsense.
b. Peak UK coal happened long ago.
c. This thread is about the UK needing to adopt fracking as a method to continue its indigenous energy supply for reasons of energy security and balance of payments.
_________________________________________________
a. Peak Oil was mentioned in the introduction to this thread.
b. Ah, so you acknowledge that Peak Raw Material can happen. So why did you write that “Peak oil is not a problem, and never will be a problem, because it cannot be a problem.” Do you now acknowledge that this was a very silly thing to say, given that the UK has already gone through Peak Coal? Peak Raw Material can, and does happen.
c. Precisely. In other words the UK cannot rely on Russian and Algerian gas, Saudi oil, or Australian coal (coliers would be such an easy target for an aggressor). In other words we have to primarily rely on UK resources, and since UK coal and coal-liquids would be exhorbitantly expensive, we cannot rely on them and still remain economically viable.
Thus the options we have for energy supplies are: UK oil (which is well past UK Peak Oil); the new shale gas reserves; and Thorium/Fusion power.
Thus, at long last, it seems that you agree with everything I have said. Thanks Rich.
.
@ur momisugly Silver Ralph
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
You keep on quoting the price of petrol at the pump as proof of ‘peak oil’.
What you pay at the pump has very little to do with either production cost or with the scarcity of the resource.
But hey, what do I know, you are the expert.
@Mr. Lynn
I found this a good article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293086/truth-about-fracking-kevin-d-williamson
MattS says: December 10, 2012 at 10:18 am
Silver Ralph,
This will never ever happen. There is more than enough oil in the ground for production rates to continue to increase no mater what the cost until a less expensive alternative is found.
The vast majority of oil consuption is through use as liquid vehicle fuel. Peak oil won’t happen until an alternative liquid vehicle fuel is found that is less expensive to produce than the next barrel of oil. But if such a alternative exists peak oil is a meaningless non crisis.
Your own example of UK coal stands as proof of my point. It peaked not because there wasn’t any more coal available in the UK but because more economical alternatives were available.
___________________________________
Grrrr. When will you get it into your unresponsive brain that Peak Oil or Peak Coal has NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL In THE GROUND (RESERVES). Oil in the ground is completely worthless – it has to come out before it is useful. And all those lovely new finds are small and difficult and expensive to extract. Why do you think the Deep Water Horizon accident happened? Do you think they were drilling in 3000m of water just for the fun of it?
I like to remind Greenies this, when they crow that wind power is completely free. I retort that oil and coal are completely free too – they are just there waiting to be dug up, completely free. They say that’s rubbish, as it costs £millions to dig it up. Precisely – and it costs £ billions to ‘dig up’ wind energy into a form that can be useful to us.
.
Thus…
Peak Oil is about peak production rates, not reserves. And production rates will peak when:
b. When wells get more and more sluggish as they age.
c. When new wells get smaller and smaller, or more and more difficult to drain.
d. When oil gets so darn expensive that people cut back or find alternatives.
Thus economics can and will trigger a Peak Oil event. The problem is, will there be an alternative to oil, when we start reaching Peak Oil price levels. Because if there is not, then people will simply cut back on oil, economic activity will reduce, and the world economy will stagnate.
The presence of shale gas gives us a partial hope that Peak Oil might become Plateau Oil, as shale gas takes up some of the slack. But I have to say that in Europe, oil is not used much for heating or electrical production, so it will not cut much off the oil demand here. And shale gas is not going to be much good for vehicular applications, without a lot of expensive processing.
.
Silver Ralph:
My post addressed to you at December 10, 2012 at 9:40 am said in total
Your reply at December 10, 2012 at 10:43 am confirms everything I said.
So, I only bother to reply to your latest demonstration of your inexpertise because I object to your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of what I wrote.
You write
I did NOT “acknowledge that Peak Raw Material can happen”. I REFUTED IT!
I said
Indeed, this is an example of what I wrote in my post (at December 9, 2012 at 11:05 am) which you have refused to read where I said
I am becoming annoyed by your disruptions of this thread from its important subject which is fracking.
Richard
Silver Ralph says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:30 am
You are presumably a scientist, who has to present the results of his work in order to get further funding (or to gain further support for the arguments you are making). Yet I have not clearly understood one of your graphs.
That I was muddled is of no consequence for you, but had I been a potential benifactor and funder of your work, you could have lost a nice fat contract.
Silver
You can’t help yourself can you; you are presuming too much too often.
I am not a scientist.
I have never applied for any grant from anyone.
I have never worked for any government.
I have never worked for anyone on contract.
I plot graphs which are not financed by anyone
I mess around with data as a hobby, to pass the time and keep the brain ticking.
. Silver Ralph,
“When oil gets so darn expensive that people cut back or find alternatives.”
My point exactly.
However, where you are going wrong is that oil drives so much of our econnomy that the price where people start cutting back significantly is likely to be MUCH higher than you think.
Additionally technology doen’t sit still just because certain oil reserves can be economically tapped even at $100 per barrel today doesn’t mean that the same will hold in 10, 20 or 30 years. Ten years from now oil fields that are uneconomical at $100 per barrel today could be econnomical at $50 per barrel.
As for the BP gulf spill with Deep Water Horizon, there have been worse accidents with land based wells. The long term environmental impacts from Deep Water Horizon have been close to zero. Measured impacts have been so low and so short lived that they can’t figure out what happened to more than half the oil that was estimated to have been released.
Thanks, O_A! Excellent article. I recommend it to all the left-wing friends of readers here. Not that it will dissuade them from the cause du jour, though.
/Mr Lynn
Other_Andy says:
December 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm
PaulH at 1:44 pm
“The Green Party leader claimed fracking means radioactivity? Really? I guess it doesn’t really matter what they say as long as they say it loud enough.”
When fracking wells are drilled, a lot of stuff comes up. One substance might be Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material…
____________________________________
Oh, Good grief. Granodiorite, yeah a rock, gives off Radon gas which is radioactive . It is among the most abundant intrusive igneous rocks.
Silver Ralph says:
December 9, 2012 at 12:16 am
“Winter tyres do not work well in the UK. Over the last 30 years there has been precious little snow, and even then only for short periods.
___________________________
That is why I invested in chains when I moved to NC and I am glad I did. The boss expected me to show up at work even if there was a nasty ice storm. Chains made that possible even if I had to drive at about 25 mph. (30 is max with chains) Chains also do not rot if not used like tires do.
MattS says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm
. Silver Ralph,
“When oil gets so darn expensive that people cut back or find alternatives.”
My point exactly.
However, where you are going wrong is that oil drives so much of our econnomy that the price where people start cutting back significantly is likely to be MUCH higher than you think….
________________________________
I remember $0.14 a gallon for gas it is now ~ $4.00 my usage is determined by my work and not by my whim. People might not go on long vacations as much and might stay closer to home on weekends but that is not much of a cut back. A ~ 23% unemployment rate has had a heck of a lot more impact than the price does.
You must live in the mountains. In Chapel Hill, some decades ago to be sure, they were so unaccustomed to snow that they tried to wash it off the streets with fire hoses. But as it was well below freezing. . .
A couple of us, who had just come from New England, thought this was hilarious.
/Mr Lynn
Here:
============
Extensive defense of fracking by Casey Research:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-dont-frack-me
Brian H says:
May 26, 2012 at 8:02 am
Zero-water, zero-chemical frac process:
http://www.gasfrac.com/
Greatly reduces costs, improves yields, eliminates environmental objections.
Anthony Scalzi says:
July 31, 2012 at 6:27 pm
BTW, Fracking processes have been developed that don’t use water for the fracking fluid. They use propane and butane instead. So objections to fracking based on the difficulty of disposing used fracking fluids are now moot-there’s no toxic wastewater to dispose of. The propane is simply recovered as part of the gas production of the well.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120415/waterless-fracking-method-propane-gasfrac-bypass-new-york-ban-hydraulic-fracturing-tioga-county
Waterless Fracking Method Could Sidestep NY Gas Drilling Ban
A plan to extract shale gas and oil from 135,000 acres in Tioga County, N.Y., could break through the state’s hydraulic fracturing moratorium, because the wells would be fracked not with water but with liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, a mixture of mostly propane.
Roger Knights says:
June 10, 2011 at 11:33 am
Criticism of anti-fracking measures:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/274316-anti-hydraulic-fracturing-movement-not-based-on-rational-thought
Quis custoddiet ipos custodes says:
June 3, 2011 at 6:53 am
Interesting summary on “Fracking Risks and Benefits” June 3, 2011-
http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/fracking-risks-and-benefits/
“Shale gas was first used in the U.S. to light homes at Fredonia, New York in 1821.
The use of shale gas is not new.
Hydraulic fracturing was first used in Texas to stimulate oil-wells in the late 1940s………….” …. “Gas migration is not due to fracking, but rather to the cement seal around the drill pipe.”
Dave Wendt says:
January 21, 2012 at 10:55 am
Very OT except as it relates to continuing ridiculousness, or perhaps moderating ridiculousness, the folks at New Scientist seem to have executed a serious worm turn away from Green Dogma with this piece
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21341-fracking-risk-is-exaggerated.html
Fracking risk is exaggerated
“Frack away, there’s no reason not to. Two of the main objections to “fracking” for shale gas have been blown out of proportion, according to British geologists.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into methane-rich shale deposits around 2 kilometres underground to liberate natural gas. It has been accused of contaminating drinking water with methane and chemicals, and causing minor earthquakes.
“We think the risk is pretty low,” said Mike Stephenson, head of energy science at the British Geological Survey at a press briefing in London on Tuesday.”
The conclusion has been obvious for quite a while, but it seems significant that the usually reliably green crowd at NS is embracing it at this point.
Bradley J. Fikes says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
On another energy topic, this is worth considering:
New study shows no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released Thursday by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
The study, released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that many problems ascribed to hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.
University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing per se, said Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the project.
“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
GeologyJim says:
January 11, 2012 at 10:04 am
Three points: First, most fracking fluid is recovered during completion of the well. It is recycled for other fracking operations (hey, all that stuff costs money). So fracking operations are nowhere near as consumptive of water as alleged
Second, 99% of the frack fluid is water and sand. The rest consists of surfactants, wetting agents, and other benign stuff that helps produce a slurry that can deliver the sand to the fractures (that’s the whole point). If the VOCs used/produced in frack fluids were really so “toxic”, one would expect very anomalous respiratory illness/death among all oilfield workers.
Third, fluid injection does not “lubricate” fault zones. Fluids can reduce the lithostatic load (weight of rocks, if you like) that keeps a fault zone from slipping under ambient earth-stress conditions, thereby allowing slippage. But it ain’t a lube-job
Ray says:
June 2, 2011 at 11:46 am
Gasland director hides full facts… there actually was methane in the aquafier way before they started fracking.
According to Josh Fox, the truth is irrelevant when you have a green agenda.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/General/gasland-director-hides-full-facts.html
Ralph says:
July 29, 2011 at 3:14 am
News from ‘Noteviljustwrong’.
Their video about gas in tap water NOT being caused by fracking was removed from Youtube, due to legal action. But Josh Fox, the director of the video ‘Gasland’, has lost that legal action, and the video has been restored.
But, as RSC has noted, synthetic petroleum can be created from coal. (Ideally, the power needed to do so very economically could come from some sort of LENR gadget.) There was some company about 15(?) years ago that developed a slick new way to do so using ammonia. It was a cover story on Time.
Thanks Roger. Some great discussion at those links!
/Mr Lynn
Roger Knights,
“But, as RSC has noted, synthetic petroleum can be created from coal. (Ideally, the power needed to do so very economically could come from some sort of LENR gadget.) There was some company about 15(?) years ago that developed a slick new way to do so using ammonia. It was a cover story on Time.”
The company that was proposing ammonia based fuel was part of the automotive X-Prize competition. Unfortunately the got disqualified before the demonstration rounds due to not having an adequate business plan. Having a plan to actually bring your option to market was part of the competition rules.
There is also a company in England which has a similar process for making gasoline.
Given CO2 + H2O + energy you can make any hydrocarbon fuel you can imagine.
Unfortunately none of these alternatives is anywhere near being cost competitive with conventional oil at current prices.
Gail Combs,
As even a 50% cut back in current US Oil consumption pretty much means just about abandoning a modern economy and going back to an agrarian economy that would have no chance of feeding our current population. Oil demand will be far less price elastic than the Peak Oil advocates think.
They have no idea how painful it would actually be for people to cut back as far as would be needed for oil production to peak before an economical alternative is available. I wish we could send some of them back in time so they could experience just how hard life was before oil.
MattS says: December 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm
As even a 50% cut back in current US Oil consumption pretty much means just about abandoning a modern economy and going back to an agrarian economy that would have no chance of feeding our current population. Oil demand will be far less price elastic than the Peak Oil advocates think.
___________________________________
I am not sure you have the dynamics of Peak Oil straight here.
If people are able to cut back on oil consuption, Peak Oil will be reached earlier (as people cut back on demand) and it will become more like a Peak Plateau, as price and demand jostle with each other. Check out the UKs Peak Coal in the early 20th century. Because other alternatives to coal became available, which dampened demand, coal production simply drifted down over 90 years to almost nothing. It was a gentle Peak.
However, if demand is inflexible, and no alternatives arise, the price will go through the roof – but this will generate ever more desperate attempts to find the most uneconomic of reserves. You may then end up with a catastrophic position.
a. If an alternative suddently turns up the price and production od oil will collapse overnight.
b. If the world economy collapsed under the weight of the absurd energy price, again demand and price will collapse.
So you have two possibilities, a gentle Peak or a precipitous and catastrophic Peak.
And as to Richard’s latest postulation, that is simply absurd. He wants us to believe that the UK can suffer Peak Coal and Peak Oil, but the World can never suffer the same fate. A bizarre position if ever there was one.
.
Also, regards Radon and is effects – I did once read a paper saying that low levels of Radon are actually good for you and they increase health and longivity. The unproven suggestion was that low levels of Radon keep your body’s repair mechanisms on their toes – a bit like receiving an inoculation for a disease.
.
MattS:
At December 10, 2012 at 8:01 pm you say
Sorry, but your economic point is plain wrong. The Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) process has been capable of producing synthetic crude oil (i.e. syncrude) from coal at competitive cost (n.b. cost and not price) with crude oil since 1994.
We proved the technical and economic abilities of the LSE process with a demonstration plant at Point Of Ayr in North Wales.
Syncrude has been made from coal whenever the supply of crude has been constrained. The Germans did it during WW2 (which is why we bombed the Ruhr valley) and apartheid South Africa used Sasol which was a development of that German process.
However, prior to LSE it was always more costly to mine, transport and convert coal to syncrude than to drill and transport crude. LSE has reversed those relative costs.
The surprising economics of LSE derive from two facts.
1.
LSE consumes sulphur-rich bottoms which have disposal cost for oil refineries.
2.
LSE can be ‘tuned’ to provide hydrocarbons which reduce need for blending.
An oil refinery separates the components of crude oil by distilling the crude. The separated components are products which must match market demand; e.g. producing the required amount of benzene must not result in producing too much or too little petroleum. This match of products to market demand is obtained by blending (i.e. mixing) different crude oils for distillation: crudes from different places contain different proportions of hydrocarbons.
Blending is expensive. It requires a variety of crudes to be transported and stored then mixed in controlled ratios.
This need for blending is why Brent Crude is so valuable. Saudi crude is the cheapest crude, and blending Saudi and Brent crudes in a ratio of about 2:1 provides a blend that nearly matches market demand for its distillates.
The LSE process can be ‘tuned’ such that it outputs a syncrude which can provide distillates which match market demand and, thus, removes the need for expensive blending. This is achieved as follows.
(a)
An LSE plant dissolves coal in a solvent in an ebulating bed at controlled temperature and pressure.
(b)
The resulting solution is converted to hydrocarbons by exposure to hydrogen gas (produced by coal using a water-gas shift) in the presence of catalysts and at variable temperature and pressure. Adjusting the temperature and pressure determines the resulting proportions of hydrocarbons.
(c)
Changing the temperature and pressure causes the hydrocarbons to come out of solution and the solvent is separated then reused in the process.
(d)
The remaining solids (mostly ash minerals) are removed by filtration as a cake.
Conversion efficiency is greater than 98%.
The UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) invented, developed and demonstrated the LSE process. CRE was owned by British Coal which was owned by UK government. Ownership of the LSE Process remained with the government when British Coal was closed in 1995.
The LSE Process is owned by UK Government. Patents on the process were taken out but details of the process are a UK State Secret. Adoption of the LSE Process would collapse the value of Brent Crude, and the sale of Brent Crude is important income for the UK.
However, the existence of the LSE Process constrains the true price of crude oil. If that price were to rise sufficiently then it would pay the UK to adopt the LSE Process or to license it to other countries for production of syncrude. Hence, the existence of the LSE process has a strategic value as a result of its constraint on the true oil price.
And the UK may adopt the LSE Process when Brent Crude is exhausted.
However, frack-gas may remove need to adopt the LSE Process for use although its strategic constraint on oil price will remain.
Richard
@richardscourtney,
“The Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) process has been capable of producing synthetic crude oil (i.e. syncrude) from coal at competitive cost (n.b. cost and not price) with crude oil since 1994.”
” If that price were to rise sufficiently then it would pay the UK to adopt the LSE Process or to license it to other countries for production of syncrude.”
If the first statement was genuinely true then the conditions for the second statement would already be met.
“However, frack-gas may remove need to adopt the LSE Process for use although its strategic constraint on oil price will remain.”
Frack-gas won’t affect oil price as much as you think in the long term. The primary use of oil is as vehicle fuel. Frack-gas can’t replace oil as a vehicle fuel for the existing fleet of vehicles. CNG and LNG are interesting alternatives but won’t see large scale use in the near term because they require fairly expensive conversions to existing vehicles.
Silver Ralph:
STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAY!
Your latest travesty is at December 11, 2012 at 3:26 am where you write
In the abstract everything has a ‘peak’: we will reach Peak World when the Sun expands to consume the Earth.
But, as I have clearly explained (at December 9, 2012 at 11:05 am), for all practical purposes all natural resources can be considered to be infinite (including the Earth).
Peak Oil is nonsense. Live with it.
Richard