Shale gas 'could create many jobs but is not a silver bullet'
Share
Shale gas could create thousands of UK engineering jobs but is not a ‘silver bullet’ for the economy, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) said today.
In a policy statement circulated to MPs, the engineering body said operations to drill for shale gas using the controversial hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ method would create 4,200 jobs per year over a 10-year programme.
However, it added that an over-reliance on gas would leave the UK vulnerable to changing global energy prices, even with shale gas, and that any developments must be coupled with investment in carbon capture and storage technology.
The IMechE said that as many as 1,300 jobs could be created annually in Lancashire, the site of 200 trillion cubic feet of underground gas, according to Cuadrilla Resources, which conducted a test drilling operation near Blackpool in 2011.
The IMechE also pointed out that the UK economy could benefit from selling shale gas expertise abroad, as had happened with the North Sea oil industry.
However, its job estimates were lower than those of Cuadrilla, which last year said a UK shale industry could create 5,600 jobs with 1,700 in Lancashire.
‘Shale gas has the potential to give some of the regions hit hardest by the economic downturn a much-needed economic boost,’ Dr Tim Fox, IMechE head of energy and environment and lead author of a shale gas policy statement, said in a statement.
‘The engineering jobs created will also help the government’s efforts to rebalance the UK’s skewed economy.
‘UK shale gas could make a helpful contribution to the UK’s energy security for the next two centuries, but it is not the silver bullet many claim it is. It is unlikely to have a major impact on energy prices and the possibility that the UK might ever achieve self-sufficiency in gas is remote.
‘A general over-reliance on gas will render the UK a hostage to volatile global energy markets, with or without UK shale gas. It is vital that the government continues to develop a balanced energy policy, incorporating renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.’
Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 19 Sep 2012 3:25 pm
A lot of jobs certainly for the cleanup operation after it pollutes the water table?
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/docs/120815_final_report_en.pdf
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 19 Sep 2012 4:19 pm
Anon. It is not a 'given' that Fracking for Shale Gas extraction will affect any water table. Careful planning and execution may well avoid that.
However. if the UK is to go ahead with this, it should be an integral part of an overall energy plan that includes Nuclear Power stations and done with the absolute aim of making the UK independent of fuel/power imports for the forseeable future.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nath | 19 Sep 2012 6:42 pm
Anon,
perhaps we should stipulate that all energy derived from wind should be to the exclusion of deaths cause to bats and birds?
Perhaps we should provide tighter guidelines on the low frequency noise wind turbines cause and the detrimental impact that has on all animals: humans included?
Moreover what do we mean by pollution of the water table? Pollution is a vague and very general terms with negative connotations and when used thoughtlessly seems to imply a stifling of debate and reason in favour of a particular agenda. Pollutants vary in toxicity and longevity, many can be treated, some recycled and maybe eliminated by the development of new technology.
The reality is if we applied a level playing field to wind power none would ever get built, yet because the political will is there thousands are being constructed at immense cost.
It seems to me that when it comes to extracting shale gas there are technical issues which must be addressed but these should be treat are no less favourably than other energy sources. Finally, given the energy densities extractable from shale it would mean any impact is highly localised and therefore more containable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment