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,
A gentile peak is a meaningless non-event. The price at which you get an economic collapse is higher than what you think it is putting the event further into the future than you think.
There are already alternatives out there that while uneconomic at current prices will become economic long before economic collapse happens as a result of oil prices.
Technological advancements in oil extraction technology will bring down the cost of currently uneconomical oil fields. This pushes a catastrophic peak out even further.
The US has untapped oil fields which would be economical at current prices which remain untapped only because the government has put them off limits. These fields are potentially large enough for the US to become a net exporter of oil again.
Yes, technically global peak oil will eventually happen. The odds that it will be anything other than a meaningless non-event that no one will notice are close to NIL.
MattS:
At December 11, 2012 at 5:08 am you quote from my post at December 11, 2012 at 4:22 am and write
No! You are wrong for the reasons I explained.
Adoption of LSE would collapse the value of Brent crude.
LSE product has similar value to refinery supply, and UK coal production is small. Brent crude has higher value than refinery supply and is a large indigenous resource.
Adoption of LSE would be a large, net loss to the UK because the benefits of LSE could not outweigh the benefits to the UK of the high value of Brent crude.
You continue by again quoting me and saying
Oil supply is not the issue here. Indigenous energy supply is.
There is no reason for the UK to adopt LSE if we have sufficient energy supply for positive balance of payments and energy security with existing infrastructure. We have infrastructure for oil provision and gas distribution. There would probably be be no net benefit in adopting LSE even after Brent crude exhausts (but time will tell).
And it would then still probably be disadvantageous to license LSE for use. Oil producers could lower oil price by increasing supply to force any licensee out of business. Potential licensees know that so would not buy the license. It is the threat of LSE production which constrains long-term oil prices and not its adoption.
Richard
MattS:
I write to provide an afterthought which I think may assist you to understand what I am saying about the strategic – as distinct from the practical – value of LSE.
The Coal Research Establishment (CRE) was shut when the scheduled closure of British Coal was completed in 1995. I know of no other closing industry which kept its research facility until its last day; research is usually the first thing to be shut because research is aimed towards a future which a closing industry does not have.
But CRE was retained as long as possible. This was because its main outputs were strategic resources of value to the nation as a whole, but its nature relied on its interaction with the coal industry. Other research facilities now attempt to provide those strategic benefits.
Richard
@richardscourtney
“Oil producers could lower oil price by increasing supply to force any licensee out of business. Potential licensees know that so would not buy the license. It is the threat of LSE production which constrains long-term oil prices and not its adoption.”
Except if Silver Ralphs fantasies about catastrophic peak oil are correct (unlikely in the extreme) then the oil producers wouldn’t be able to increase supply.
And even if he isnt right, If the LSE process is cost competitive with oil production costs, this shouldn’t be possible. The oil producers wouldn’t be able to sell oil at a net loss for very long.
For most of the current top oil producing countries, their entire economies are dependent on the oil income.
MattS:
Thankyou for your reply to me at December 11, 2012 at 10:45 am it says
Yes, of course you are right.
We are discussing future possibilities, and prediction is difficult especially of the future.
Your point emphasises the importance of each country taking strategic actions to protect energy security. In this thread we are discussing the UK situation and how objections to fracking inhibit UK energy security.
Earlier in the discussion you mentioned a similar issue relevant to the US. At December 11, 2012 at 5:21 am you wrote
I recognise that US oil production could be considered off-topic because this thread is about the UK situation. Also, I am a British Subject – not a US Citizen – so any comment I make about it could be thought impertinent. However, your point provides a much clearer demonstration of the strategic decisions which politicians need to make about energy policy. So, I offer some observations.
One view of a US Energy Security Issue
The US economy needs more revenue, more GDP, and improved balance of payments.
Increased oil production would provide all three.
And production of the oil would insulate the US from non-US oil production variations.
Also, keeping the oil in the ground risks future technology reducing the usefulness of oil and so risks losing the value and economic progress from exploiting that oil now.
Another view of that US Energy Security Issue
The US needs to insulate its economy from oil price hikes such as those which happened in the 1970s. Such price hikes would damage US revenue, GDP, and balance of payments.
Keeping the oil in the ground is a method of storage of the oil so the store could be exploited if such price hikes happened.
And the existence of the store is a deterrent to such price hikes.
Also, keeping the oil in the ground is an insurance against loss of US energy supply because the oil could be exploited if needed.
These alternative policy arguments are simplistic, but they illustrate how politicians need to have policies which protect energy security, and the choice of such strategic policies is the stuff of pure politics. Importantly, please note that the political decisions are not merely about whether the oil is needed or is economic.
Similarly, the issues concerning fracking in the UK are not merely about whether the gas is needed or is economic.
I hope these musings are helpful to your thoughts and I would welcome other opinions on these matters.
Richard
@richardscourtney,
I am a US Citizen. On your options for US enegry strategy I happen to think that the first view is better than the second.
I also know that the second strategy has nothing to do with why the US government has put so much US oil off limits. The only reason this has been done is to placate environmentalist groups that believe that oil is the root of all evil.
It can take decades to get a new oil fields into production. For the oil fields I am refering to to be useful for your second posited strategy the wells would have to be drilled now and capped so that they could be brought into production on short notice. This is not what the US is doing. The government is not allowing the wells to be drilled in the first place.
I will posit a third strategy. A fake out. Get the UK and the US together and sink enough money into LSE and the currently off limits oil fields to make it look like they are being brought into production. This will force OPEC to increase supply there by reducing prices to near the break even point. Thus tricking OPEC in to subsidizing the US and UK economies at the cost of their own..
MattS:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at December 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm.
As I said, my admittedly simplistic options about possible exploitation of US oil reserves were intended as illustration of some of the variety of issues which affect strategic energy policies, and they were not intended to deflect the thread. Indeed, I would not commend either of those stark options.
And I did enjoy your “third strategy”. Good one! 🙂
In my opinion, your important point is your saying
As the photograph at the top of this thread shows, we have similar problems in the UK. Fracking, and consents for opencast coal extraction are opposed by the same idiots who demand windfarms.
Richard
Richard,
I has been a fun conversation. Just one last point. Unless you have first hand knowledge don’t bet that the UK gov is keeping LSE out of play for reasons any more intelligent than the ones keeping significant untapped oil fields out of play in the US.