Fracking: Let’s just end this nonsense

By Jon Crooks

I recently wrote to my Labour MP to express my serious concern that the government could soon overturn Lancashire Council’s locally made decision to reject fracking. Whilst I pointed out that such a decision would set a deeply worrying signal for future fracking decisions, the argument I was making in the main was around the principle of whether local councils should be able to make planning decisions like this without interference from Westminster.

My MP kindly responded and dedicated a couple of lines to say that she shared my concern that ministers may overturn locally made decisions to reject fracking.

However, she chose to dedicate the first four paragraphs of her response to a justification of her support for fracking itself. She was at pains to caveat that support, but nonetheless she did seem to be justifying it on the grounds that:

  1. 80% of our homes rely on gas for heating

  2. 30% of our electricity comes from gas fired power stations and we will still need flexible power to help manage peaks in demand, and projections from National Grid expect gas to continue to play a vital role for many years to come.

  3. Since 2004, the UK has become a net importer of gas

I have recently completed a good deal of research on the role of gas in the UK and so I wanted to respond to those three points. I took them in reverse order.

‘Since 2004, the UK has become a net importer of gas’

I am familiar with the ‘energy trilemma’, which is made up of environmental sustainability, energy security and affordability. Let’s take affordability first. It has been well documented that even if we do find a sizable supply of gas under our feet, it would have little or no impact on the price of gas on the wholesale market. I would challenge anyone to convince me otherwise given how the wholesale market works.

So what we are really talking about here is an energy dilemma between energy security and environmental sustainability.

Let’s look at energy security next. First thing to mention is that we have been a net importer of gas for 12 years, as suggested, and nothing much has changed over the last 6 years. In fact, we were relying on a higher proportion of imported gas in the years 2010 – 2013 than over the last couple of years. Whilst one could raise an eyebrow at the thought of imported gas from Qatar, most of our gas comes from Norway who have significant reserves and are a close and friendly neighbour.

The fact of the matter is, the way the wholesale gas market works, we are simply buying contracts based on whatever is cheapest on that particular day, or even that particular second, based on a range of factors. The bottom line is that there is no perceived threat to the supply of gas on the European gas markets, it’s political spin.

What we are really talking about here is GDP. This simply comes down to a trade off between increasing GDP for UK plc vs. environmental impact. In this regard, on the second page of my MP’s letter she actually went on to say that:

“we need a clean, secure, low-carbon future in the UK not a dirty fossil fuel one. The government’s latest report states that the cost of gas generation in 2025 will be higher than the cost of both solar and onshore wind so we need to question why the government is trying to lock us in o a fossil fuel infrastructure for the next thirty five years rather than backing the clean technologies of the future.”

Yes, absolutely! She went on to mention jobs and environmental safeguards. Jobs will be generated in whatever energy sector we decide to pursue. There are no shortage of green jobs in clean energy.

In terms of environmental safeguards, let’s specifically talk about climate. You may have seen recent reports on figures – based on Met Office data – prepared by meteorologist Ed Hawkins of Reading University, which show that average global temperatures have already been more than 1C above pre-industrial levels for every month except one over the past year and peaked at +1.38C in February and March.

Keeping within the 1.5C limit set in Paris in December will now be extremely difficult, say scientists, given these rises. These alarming figures will form the backdrop to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change talks in Geneva which have now commenced, where scientists have begun work on outlining ways to implement the climate goals set in Paris. Dates for abandoning all coal-burning power stations and halting the use of combustion engines across the globe – possibly within 15 years – are likely to be set.

You will have no doubt heard of Dr James Hansen from Columbia University, the former NASA scientist credited with first bringing the issue of climate change to the fore. In his blog earlier this year he spoke of some very bad news on atmospheric methane. He revealed as follows:

“Methane amount in the atmosphere was stable from 1999 to 2006, but growth resumed in the past decade and accelerated more sharply in the past two years. Although the reasons for resumed methane growth remain to be accurately quantified, the largest methane source is fossil fuel mining and leakage, and the United States seems to be the greatest contributor. The timing and location of renewed methane growth suggest hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of shale formations as the primary cause…”

He goes on to put the increased methane (which is far more potent a GHG than CO2) into context in terms of meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Hansen says:

“It had appeared in 2000 that, with a rising price on carbon, it might be conceivable to follow a course …which would yield a maximum global warming of about 1.5°C.  … the global GHG growth rate is now far above the 1.5°C scenario and diverging from it. So is it even conceivable that this growth trend can be reversed…? The answer is: we have no choice… we need to forgo the fruits of the “fracking” revolution. The signature of U.S. fracking on global methane is only too clear, including the added acceleration of the past two years in which 55,000 additional fracking wells were drilled…”

I don’t know about you, but ‘energy security’ (by which we mean a boost to UK GDP) doesn’t seem quite as important in the context of such a planetary emergency.

‘30% of our electricity comes from gas fired power stations and we will still need flexible power to help manage peaks in demand, and projections from National Grid expect gas to continue to play a vital role for many years to come.’

A report by the UK Energy Research Council in February 2016 suggested that there was only limited scope for new gas fired power stations. The report argues that after 2025, if the carbon targets are to be cost-effectively met, the use of gas in power stations would need to decline, especially if they were not fitted with CCS. This would raise questions as to the economic viability of investing in these gas-fired stations, rather than low- or zero-carbon power generation, in the first place.

The UKERC report concluded that gas is unlikely to act as a cost-effective ‘bridge’ to a decarbonised UK energy system.

‘80% of our homes rely on gas for heating’

The influential think tank Policy Exchange, in a recent report, said that lack of progress on the decarbonisation of heating could “make or break the UK’s carbon plans”. It suggested a new strategy based on a more balanced set of priorities and technologies – incorporating substantial improvements in energy efficiency, more efficient gas appliances, greener forms of gas (synthetic gas or ‘green gas’ rather than natural gas obtained through ‘fracking’), and alternative heat technologies could deliver an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.

Nick Hurd MP himself in the Paris Agreement climate change debate on 7th September hinted that the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, due out by the end of the year, will focus on reducing emissions from heating and transport.

There can be no doubt therefore that demand for gas in domestic heating will have to fall quickly over the coming decades, before any new source of gas becomes available from ‘fracking’, even if ‘fracking’ is actually viable.

I finished by asking my MP to now please join Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn and Greater Manchester Mayor candidate, Andy Burnham in calling for a ban on fracking. It is deeply unpopular, a huge distraction to what we should be focusing on, it will take years to set up this whole new fossil fuel industry, which could prove to be very costly to our climate and our commitments under the Climate Change Act, whilst failing to deliver cheaper bills.

Gas is already plentiful on the European wholesale market (indeed the world can’t burn what has already been accounted for and remain within 2C of global warming) and demand in the UK will continue to fall as we decarbonise our electricity and domestic heating sectors.

I asked my Labour MP not to side with the Tories, who are far too close to the fossil fuel industry, and instead support a clean energy future instead and come out in favour of a ban on fracking.


Are new gas-fired power plants the ‘bridge fuel’ to a low carbon future?

By Jon Crooks

Over the course of the next three days, I’m going to produce a series of three blogs examining the prospects for UK energy policy. By this I specifically mean the power sector (how we generate our electricity). In this first one I’m looking at the role of gas power plants


As ever, it’s worth first looking at the longer-term perspective in terms of the UK’s low-carbon transition. In this respect, the good news is that 2015 saw record contributions from low-carbon sources to the electricity generation sector, as Carbon Brief recently concluded, but the UK still relies on fossil fuels for 54% of its power generation needs.

“The UK’s fifth carbon budget, recently passed into law, will require the power sector to be largely decarbonised by 2030. Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement on climate change means the UK has pledged, along with almost 200 other nations, to almost completely decarbonise all energy use soon after mid-century.” – Carbon Brief

With this in mind, Amber Rudd’s announcement last November that power generation in the UK from coal would be phased out by 2025 and the principle replacement would come from new gas-fired power stations, raises some serious questions. A report from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) in February 2016 asked a similar question:

“Can gas, by substituting for coal, act as a ‘bridging fuel’ to a low-carbon UK energy system and, if so, how much gas use does such a bridge entail, and over what period of time?”

The advantages are clear. Natural gas has significantly lower CO2 emissions on combustion per unit of energy delivered than coal or oil. Also, as building  experts at EC Harris point out, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants (CCGT) also combine the benefits of proven technology, flexible load capacity (their output can be adjusted relatively quickly to meet demand) and being relatively predicable in build and cost.

The other key argument is that CCGT can be used to improve security of supply during the period where low carbon technology is being developed and it can be used to meet peaks in demand, even when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Historic trends

Looking back, the substitution of coal by gas in the UK’s energy system has been happening since the 1980’s, as this diagram shows:


Thirty two CCGT plants were given the go ahead between 1990 and 2013.

Current trends

The report by UKERC in February 2016 suggested that there was some scope for this to continue:

These substitutions meant that by 2014 the share of coal in UK primary energy consumption had fallen from 40% in 1970 to 16%, while gas use had increased from 5% to 47%. Of the remaining coal use in 2014, nearly 80% was in the electricity sector. Replacing this immediately with 30 GW of CCGTs, operating at the 40% load factor that was the average for such power stations over 2010-2014 could reduce emissions by over 80 Mt CO2-eq per year. This is a significant reduction, exceeding the emission reductions required under the 3rd carbon budget covering the period 2018 to 2022.

You can see the attraction. However, the report goes on to say:

“After 2025, if the carbon targets are to be cost-effectively met, the use of gas in power stations would need to decline, especially if they were not fitted with CCS… This would raise questions as to the economic viability of investing in these gas-fired stations, rather than low- or zero-carbon power generation, in the first place.”

The UKERC report concluded that gas is unlikely to act as a cost-effective ‘bridge’ to a decarbonised UK energy system. Their analysis showed that gas could only act as a bridge from 2015-20 and is…

…more likely to provide a short-term stop-gap until low- or zero-carbon energy sources can come on stream. 

However, according to recently published figures from the new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), we can see that renewables share of the electricity generation sector was up five percentage points in 2015 while coal-fired power generation continued to plummet.

Chapter_5_web-page-007 (1)

Source: Electricity: Chapter 5, Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES)

Electricity generated from coal reduced in market share by a massive 8% from 30% to 22% and gas remained relatively steady. The winners were the renewables sector, increasing its share from 19% to 25% and nuclear increasing from 19% to 21% as some capacity came back on line. The take home message from this is clear. Based on current trends, renewables is successfully filling the gap left by coal, not gas.

Methane leakage

Whilst CO2 emmisions from gas-powered plants may be lower than coal, methane leaks could mean that gas emerges worse than coal in emissions terms overall. Global methane emissions have been rising continuously since 2007.

The Aliso Canyon gas leak in California, which was eventually plugged after nearly four months trying to contain it, brought new attention to methane. The gas is roughly 86 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change over a period of 20 years, or 35 times as potent over the span of a century. The Aliso leak spewed enough methane into the atmosphere to equal the greenhouse gases emitted by more than 440,000 cars in a year.

In fact, an emphasis purely on long-term solutions and mid-century goals can obscure the fact that the worst effects of climate change may become irreversible if we don’t take aggressive action now. Controlling methane emissions is said to be the single most important move we can make to alter the near-term trajectory of climate change. Methane emissions cause one quarter of the increased warming we are currently experiencing. 

New CCGT power stations

As UKERC have pointed out, if new gas-powered stations are to be built, they will need to operate on lower and lower load factors, which is something that investors will doubtless take into account in their decision whether to invest. This means that new gas-fired power stations, like nuclear, needs significant and long term government subsidy in the form of future returns if they are to be built.

GE Power and DF Energy are building a new gas-fired power station in Carrington, Greater Manchester for Carrington Power. The 880MW power plant will enter commercial operation  in 2016 following the three-year construction period and will generate enough electricity to supply the needs of around a million homes. This is new fossil-fuel infrastructure, capable of operating well into the 2030’s, long after we should have decarbonised our power sector.

In contrast, perhaps reflecting the new realities, newer projects may be struggling to get off the ground. Energy firm Carlton Power was awarded a subsidy contract by the Department of Energy and Climate Change last year to build a new 1.9 GW  plant at Trafford in Greater Manchester – big enough to supply power to 2.2 million homes. The £800 million plant was due to start generating in October 2018, but Carlton Power has said it can no longer meet that date and has so far failed to secure financial backers for the project to go ahead at all, and this despite government subsidy.


Why waste taxpayers money on long-term subsidies of this kind when it is proven that renewables are already taking up the majority of the lost coal-powered capacity and we won’t even be able to make use of these new gas power plants beyond 2025-2030?

Yes, we need baseload power to iron out the fluctuations in supply from wind and solar, but this can be achieved in other ways.

Much will depend on other developments in the wider energy system – such as new nuclear, the scale of renewable energy deployment and the availability of key technologies, but these developments are already taking place.

Whilst the debate around what should make up our energy mix in the future will rage on and the UK Government must not back down from its commitment to remove all coal-fired power generation by 2025, equally, policy makers must think very carefully about how best to replace that capacity. A further ‘dash for gas’ may provide some short term gains in reducing CO2 emissions, but it would not be the most cost-effective way of doing so and methane leaks could represent a far worse problem.

In the upcoming second blog of this series, I will begin to consider whether a transition to 100% renewable energy is possible without building any new fossil fuel or nuclear capacity… 

Keep it in the ground

By Jon Crooks

We are approaching the problem of climate change from completely the wrong end. Laurence and Alison Matthews have explained the problem like this:

“Suppose you had a garden hose connected to a sprinkler. If you wanted to save water, would you try to block up holes in the sprinkler? Of course you wouldn’t; you’d simply turn off the tap a bit. By controlling the fossil fuels coming into the system (the tap), we can automatically control the emissions created further down the line (the sprinkler). This would be simpler, cheaper and would focus attention on the root cause of emissions: the extraction of fossil fuels.”

Earlier this year, Nature published the most detailed scientific paper yet on how much fossil fuel should be left in the ground if we’re to have a chance of preventing more than two degrees of global warming. As George Monbiot pointed out in his article at the time, to deliver a 50% probability (which is not exactly reassuring) of no more than 2° of warming this century, the world would have to leave two-thirds of its fossil fuel ‘reserves’ in the ground. ‘Reserves’ of course are just a small fraction of the total ‘resources’ (which means all the minerals in the Earth’s crust). The ‘reserve’ is just the proportion already discovered, quantified and ready to go.

The Nature paper estimates that a third of the world’s oil reserves, half its gas reserves and 80% of its coal reserves must be left untouched to avert extremely dangerous levels of global warming. Two degrees is dangerous enough, but at present we’re on course for around five degrees by the end of the century.

The only sensible response is a global agreement to leave these fossil fuels in the ground. Monbiot suggests that companies could buy permits to extract fossil fuels in a global auction. As a result, the price would rise, making low carbon technologies, such as renewables, much better investments. The energy companies would then have no choice but to start getting out of dirty fossil fuels and into clean technologies. The money from the auctioned permits could be used either to compensate poorer nations or help them survive in a world in which some dangerous warming – but hopefully no more than 2° – will inevitably occur.

But it’s not just that no such agreement exists, no such agreement has ever been mooted. Researching Don’t Even Think About It, one of the most important books published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or paper on limiting fossil fuel extraction put forward during international climate negotiations.

Most people unthinkingly accept the viewpoint that sees the world as a collection of countries. Attention immediately focuses on national statistics, national commitments and negotiations between nations. Global policy is more like inter-national policy.

But what about a single, worldwide solution for the planet as a whole? Wouldn’t it be better if we were to ditch the national posturing in favour of a unified, transparent system that put an immediate embargo on any new exploration of fossil fuels and a cap and quota system in place for extracting what remaining fossil fuels we can afford to burn?

Almost every country around the world is pursuing the same policy: maximising the extraction of fossil fuels whilst attempting to minimise emissions. There’s no attempt to resolve this contradiction or even to acknowledge it. And let’s be clear, if the stuff keeps coming out of the ground, it will be burned, without regard to the policies seeking to limit its consumption. National governments will resist global solutions, since each government wants to control what happens in its own country, but global emergencies need global action. 

The world’s governments need to regulate the source of the problem and abandon the approach of allowing each and every country to voluntarily set its own target of reducing emissions and we must stop companies exploring new sources of fossil fuels in vulnerable places like the arctic, the Virunga National Park in the Congo, where around a quarter of the last remaining gorillas live, or the Galilee Basin in Queensland, Australia where a massive new coal mine with a life of 35 years has been approved; or by fracking the hell out of our own green and pleasant land!

This should be the focus of our campaigns. Through groups like, Avaaz, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, we must drag our governments out of the clutches of the fossil fuel industry.


First posted on on 4 March 2015

Who benefits from fracking?

By Jon Crooks, published on The News Hub on 12th February 2015 and Campaign for the North blog on 17th February 2015

The question was asked last week at a Guardian Live event in Manchester entitled ‘Fracking – friend or foe?’ On the panel was Dr Nick Riley, formerly Team Leader for Unconventional Gas at the British Geological Society and clearly an enthusiastic supporter of fracking. He tried to look sincere as he answered that it was “for the people”. He was drowned out by laughter.

The room was inevitably filled with concerned citizens from around the north west, and there’s no doubt from the comments and questions that here it very much feels like fracking is for the benefit of the fracking industry and central government and not for the people at all. As one member of the audience put it: it feels like it is being “done to us”.

Lancashire is the Front Line in this Battle

Lancashire has been at the forefront of the UK’s nascent shale gas industry and two Cuadrilla sites on the Fylde may soon become the test bed for the so called shale gas revolution.

Small earthquakes caused by Cuadrilla’s activity in 2011 saw a moratorium put in place, but once it was lifted the company submitted plans for up to four wells at each of two sites at Preston New Road and Roseacre wood. Each of these sites would see hundreds of fracks – the high pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals – to see how much gas can be released.

Planning officers last month concluded that the increase in night-time noise from the operations would be too great at both sites and that heavy truck movements would involve a “severe” increase in traffic, particularly HGVs. The decision by the council was therefore deferred for eight weeks to allow for further public consultation, but this has angered some people as it gives Cuadrilla more time to tinker with their application and manipulate the planning system.

Removal of Democracy

Many at the debate in Manchester last week argued that there has been a removal of democracy from the whole process from start to finish. As one Lancashire councillor who was in the audience pointed out, plans to introduce fracking in the UK wasn’t in any of the election manifestos of the three main parties in the lead up to the last General Election, yet all three are supportive of this new fossil fuel industry in some form.

The coalition government came to power promising localism. But when they don’t like local decisions, they change the rules. The humongous ‘Infrastructure Bill’ will in some cases end the rights of councils in granting or denying planning consent. A new quango will be set up, to be known as the Homes and Communities Agency, where Eric Pickles (and his successors) and just two inspectors will control many of our planning decisions. This government promised localism, but is delivering a further shift of power from local to central government.

Also part of this enormous piece of legislature is the Trespass Law, which allows drilling beneath our homes without our permission.

Whilst it seemed at first that Labour would only back the bill if the Tories agreed to their strict regulatory protections, these protections were ultimately watered down. The new protections will rule out fracking in certain protected areas such as national parks, but it is not yet clear if this will include all the areas initially intended. Groundwater source areas should also be protected, but this is clearly not a priority for government or the opposition as the definition was weakened in the final draft by removing reference to Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1-3, as defined by the Environment Agency.

In any case, these new protections will not effect Cuadrilla’s two sites in Lancashire. So now ministers need to explain why if fracking is too risky in our National Parks, how is it safe for the rest of the UK? As Louise Hutchins at Greenpeace UK has said, why is it “too risky for the South Downs, but perfectly safe in the Lancashire countryside?”

The Infrastructure Bill

by Jon Crooks

air pollution

As the Lima climate talks enter their second week, MPs gather for the second reading of the government’s Infrastructure Bill. This bill, as Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, points out is written in a way that will lull you into a stupor. But the contents of the infrastructure bill she says should snap you wide awake.

The main elements of the bill are:


Air pollution is now the world’s chief killer. In 2012, it was the source of around 7 million premature deaths. In the UK, it has reached illegal highs and takes the lives of 29,000 people every year. Today, a new report from the environmental audit committee (of which Caroline Lucas is a member) dubs air pollution “a public health imperative”, and concludes that to save lives “urgent change is needed”.

But the infrastructure bill doesn’t mention anything about clean air targets. Instead, it emphasises big road investment to the tune of £15bn. This includes 1,300 miles in new traffic lanes.

Road traffic is the primary contributor to air pollution in most parts of the UK. And new roads  don’t cut congestion. Even government studies show that. They simply lead to more jams, exacerbate emissions and erode our countryside. Increasing major road capacity simply stimulates a further growth in traffic, which means that more road schemes are needed etc etc. In the long run, congestion returns and pollution is greater as total traffic volume increases. The main beneficiaries are road building companies.

Labour is outraged. Not from any climate or health concern – it simply sulked that the government was all talk, and chastised it for failing to invest sooner – not just for roads but for airport expansion too.

Earlier this month, Department for Transport figures showed that local sustainable transport schemes returned £5 for every £1 spent. Clearly therefore, our £15bn would be far better used repairing existing roads, improving footpaths and adding cycle paths and on initiatives to boost public transport, walking and cycling.

Oil & Gas

This year, David Cameron dubbed climate change one of “the greatest threats” we faced. Just yesterday Ed Miliband proclaimed tackling climate change as “the most important thing” he could do in politics. But the infrastructure bill doesn’t mention climate change. Whilst the science is clear that to avoid catastrophic climate change about 80% of our existing fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground, this bill includes a new duty to maximize the recovery of oil and gas – just when we’re duty-bound to reduce it.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise as we know that the government’s on a shale crusade and the infrastructure bill paves the way for this whole new fossil fuel industry. The bill awards the fracking industry sweeping new powers to run pipelines under private land without the consent of owners. It’s opposed by 75% of us, but what does public opinion matter?

Meanwhile, the UK’s renewables industry struggles to get a word in edge ways. The bill rightly talks a lot about jobs creation – the Department of Energy and Climate Change predicts fracking could generate up to 32,000. But despite the government’s cuts, the renewables industry already supports more than 100,000 jobs and a nationwide energy efficiency programme could create an additional 108,000 jobs every year between 2020 and 2030.

To be fair, the bill does give a nod to community energy ownership rights – a small step in the right direction. But we should be taking giant leaps. Fracking has a limited lifespan. We’d receive a far richer return on our billions, economically and in energy security by going all out for homegrown renewables and energy efficiency. This would create jobs, slash emissions and cut fuel bills.

The UK has some of Europe’s least energy-efficient housing – energy efficiency should be our number one infrastructure priority. But the infrastructure bill doesn’t even mention it.

Public sector land assets

The proposed bill will also in some cases end the rights of councils in granting or denying planning consent.

The bill would permit the transfer of up to 90% of brown field sites (previously developed sites that have become vacant) to the Homes and Communities Agency (a new quango) where Eric Pickles (and his successors) and just 2 inspectors will control planning decisions.

From the government’s perspective, it’s all about speeding up planning decisions and avoiding the delay caused by local ownership of the decision making process. Is this because the landed classes would rather new things be built on our land than theirs? The fact that The Queen is exempt from the Bill despite being the largest landowner in the world, surely confirms this.

This government promised localism, but is delivering a further shift of power from local to central government.


First posted on on 8 December 2014


David Cameron and George Osborne have recently declared that the government is “going all out for shale” with councils & homeowners to be effectively bribed in order to shore up support for fracking despite concerns about the use of high-pressure water and chemicals and the effects on our countryside, communities and of course Climate Change.

Even Labour’s Tom Greatrex, the shadow energy minister, said:

“Gas will remain an important part of our energy mix in the future, and if shale gas can replace our rapidly depleting North Sea reserves it could help improve our energy security. It is right that any communities that host nationally significant energy infrastructure are able to share in its rewards.”

My concern is that many of the arguments for fracking have been discredited, whilst the environmental concerns remain.

One argument for fracking is that it will bring down energy prices. However, Lord Browne, the former BP boss who is now chairman of Cuadrilla as well as a non-executive director inside the civil service, has said:

“We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

Meanwhile, analysts at the City firm Brewin Dolphin also poured scorn on Cameron and George Osborne for over-hyping the potential impact of shale in Britain.

“We believe the shale industry is unlikely to produce commercial volumes of gas until the end of this decade and that it is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on gas prices…”

“This is due to two reasons; first, commercially available volumes are likely to be significantly lower in the UK than in the US, and second, if UK shale is successful, exploration companies could export the gas to achieve higher prices…”

Another argument is that it will create jobs. The Institute of Directors has predicted that the shale industry could create 74,000 direct and indirect jobs within 15 years, but the Civitas thinktank points to the mistakes made in the development of the UK’s offshore wind industry with some 90% of contracts for prestige projects such as the London Array – the world’s largest offshore wind farm, close to the Kent coastline – being placed abroad. It’s owned by a consortium without any British involvement.

The scope for a repeat exists with shale. There are 2,000 onshore land rigs with 500 trained shale teams working in the US, while there are only 77 rigs and 10 fracking crews in Europe. The North Sea oil industry is already suffering from soaring wages and other costs owing to skill shortages and it is not clear who would be on the front line of any British shale revolution.

Environmentalists remain solidly opposed to extraction on the basis of safety. Test drilling by Cuadrilla produced the Blackpool earthquakes and there are still concerns about fracking chemicals leaking into water supplies.

Friends of the Earth says the UN environment programme has warned that…

“…fracking may result in unavoidable environmental impacts even if [gas] is extracted properly”.

Dave Timms, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth says:

“We should not be encouraging the further extraction and burning of oil and gas when what we need is the rapid deployment of new low-carbon technologies”.

He’s right.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Lawrence Carter says:

“Total, a French company who can’t frack in their own country because the French government has stopped the French countryside being ripped up, have now turned their sights on the UK countryside, where the UK government seem happy to allow the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. The UK government seem deaf to the risks fracking poses to our environment and local communities and are pushing ahead with selling off two-thirds of Britain for drilling without a public mandate.”

This brings me to the piece in The Guardian yesterday, which focuses on the really big issue of Climate Change. It starts by telling us that global greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise by nearly a third in the next two decades, putting hopes of curtailing dangerous climate change beyond reach, and this is from a new report by BP!

It goes on to say that shale gas will account for a rising proportion of the growth in energy in the years to 2035, but its use will not cause a decline in greenhouse gases.

This pours cold water on proponents of shale gas who have argued that its use will cut emissions. Burning gas produces much less CO2 than burning coal, but the effect of a huge rise in shale gas exploration will not ameliorate the increases in emissions that scientists say will take the world to dangerous climate change.

Proponents of the fuel have argued that shale gas can counteract dependence on coal. But while shale gas use has increased dramatically, particularly in the US, global emissions have continued to rise as the coal that would otherwise have been used has been exported elsewhere.

Christof Ruehl, BP chief economist, said that fuel switching had little impact on overall emissions. Coal use globally had risen to record levels, even as shale gas had risen.

This news that such a move will not cut overall emissions takes away a key plank in the arguments put forward by David Cameron, George Osborne and the shale companies.

BP in its global energy outlook said gas would take a 27% share of global energy consumption by 2035, with a similar share for coal, oil, and an amalgamated low-carbon sector including nuclear, hydro, wind and sun.

BP predicts that global emissions will rise 29% by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that emissions must peak by 2020 to give the world a chance to avoid a further two degrees of warming, beyond which the effects of climate change become catastrophic and irreversible.

Tony Bosworth, Friends of the Earth energy campaigner, said:

“The case for shale gas is crumbling. Experts say it won’t lead to cheaper fuel bills, and now BP says it won’t cut carbon emissions either. Follow the PM’s logic and we’d be punching thousands of holes in our countryside only to further add to climate change and continue with sky-high bills.

Instead of going all out for shale, the prime minister should focus on the real answers to the energy challenges we face: energy efficiency and renewable power.”

Finally, politicians must consider the views of the public. A new opinion poll for the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) found that 47% of people would be unhappy for a gas well site using fracking to open within 10 miles of their home, compared with just 14% who said they would be happy.

The biggest concerns for the people polled included fears of damage to the local environment, the associated noise and disruption, fears over the chemicals used and health risks, as well as fears that drinking water might be contaminated.

Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the IME, said:

“These poll results suggest that simply offering money to local councils and communities is not enough to convince the public about the benefits of fracking for gas.”

The Guardian carried out the first UK nationwide poll on shale last summer and found people split down the middle, 40% in favour of shale drilling in their area, 40% against, with 20% unsure. The IME poll suggests attitudes to shale are hardening rather than softening.

Originally posted on on 16 January 2014