The UK government has given the go ahead for shale gas fracking to take place after communities secretary Sajid Javid overturned Lancashire county council’s rejection of a fracking site.
Hydraulilc fracturing – or fracking, the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks to force open existing fissures to extract oil or gas – will now take place at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site situated at Little Plumpton in Lancashire. Plans for a second site at Roseacre Wood have not yet been approved.
The plans for both locations were originally refused permission by the Lancashire County Council due to concerns over noise and the impact of traffic. Javid’s decision to uphold Cuadrilla’s appeal for the Preston Road site in Lancashire will enable four shale gas exploration wells to be drilled next year.
Commenting on the decision, Prof Quentin Fisher, Professor of Petroleum Geoengineering at Leeds University said: “I’m very pleased with this decision. It will mean that the industry can get on and assess whether shale gas production is economically viable and determine the amount of producible gas that is contained within shale below the U.K.
“The decision will also allow industry to demonstrate that fracking can be conducted safely with minimal impact on local communities. I realise that some people who live close to the site will feel worried by this decision but I’m 100 per cent sure that its impact will be far less than they have been led to believe by the anti-fracking movement.”
Adding a note of caution, Prof Jim Watson, director of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), said: “The costs of UK shale will not be clearer until a significant amount of exploratory drilling takes place.
“But even if shale gas development turns out to be economic, it is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on the energy bills of UK consumers.
“The contribution of UK shale development to our energy security is also hard to determine.
“Contrary to some industry claims, empirical research shows that domestic energy resources (e.g. shale gas) are not necessarily more secure than those from abroad.
“It is [also] essential that the future use of gas is consistent with our climate change targets under the Climate Change Act, whether this gas comes from shale, the North Sea or Norway.”
The first piece of good news for the energy sector in a long time.
Agree that there is a long way to go, but at least we are on the way.
The Climate Change Act would have been worth a comment from the learned professor as it is a millstone around the necks of all British manufacture; but he is part of the establishments control group and deep in the rough of subsidy and penalty.
i believe domestic energy has been a disaster for the north. the energy crisis of the late 70’s gave us the north sea industry which started pumping out oil in the early 80’s. the pound soared and manufacturing collapsed.
energy is a true boom and bust story but skills, industry and manufacturing capability give a much more stable base from which to prosper.
the north will catch little value from any energy extracted by the time the city has picked away at it.
What about the “Northern powerhouse”, pity that it is really just to feed the city, eh?
Manufacturing in the UK is dying rapidly; at the present rate of decline it will be gone by 2030; and it seems to me that the only hopes to revive this (and the worthwhile employment that goes with it), is to get a source of low cost non-imported energy and possibly maintain the devaluation of the pound that has occurred recently.
Come on fellows, have you not realised the real situation. Farming/Manufacturing often involved ‘lots’ of serfs (from the Peasent’s revolt through the Tolpuddle martyrs to King Arthur of Barnsley) and the upper orders have always been extremely frightened of mass groups who get organised, even unionised! [there are more workers than drones!] So, divide and rule, [the division being between those who make and those who manipulate: adding profit but not much value] Any retailer makes money mostly out of staff and suppliers, (wherever they are) not out of customers? [Think about it -as I have done for decades] Then you have a recipe for permanent government from the Right, who are always right? well aren’t they?
Everyone seems to have forgotten what effect will fracking have on areas around Sellafield. The radioactive waste is not in very good condition physically!
The real energy story this week is Scotland’so decision to ban Underground Coal Gasification. Unlike fracking, which remains speculative as far as reserves are concerned, we know exactly where the coal lies and we know we have plenty of it.
I’m all in favour of a low carbon energy landscape but we are nowhere near that and unlikely to be for another 20 years. (Anyone remember the prediction that fusion is only 20 years away – 30 years ago). To givery us some breathing space we need a secure indigenous energy supply and UCG can give us that. The syngas can be a petrochemicals feedstock and provideas heat and power that no other source can offer at the moment.
Anyone who thinks biomass is a credible alternative for baseload heat and power is delusional. After all, our coal is biomass that took 2 million years or more to develop, but we think we can shortcut that process by growing and burning crops every year.
Biomass – try getting methane out of manure and sewerage. Then put the methane into the gas grid 24/7. You could also collect gas from mines and landfills.
With triple-paned windows we could make windows larger, and use more daylight. Triple-paned windows also heat more than they lose heat. With proper architectural change you could increase energy efficiency all over the country, in homes, schools and all kinds of premises; for many years to come.
Two impacts on manufacturing: energy savings will provide energy for manufacturing, and need for windows, solar collectors, heat exchangers, house insulation etc. will create demand for production and research..
“Energy” would certainly benefit for a short time, when the consumer would consume more energy.
But all that money spent on energy is not available for goods manufactured in the country or services.
The consumer would benefit more from energy saving.
That would also free more money to put into investing into energy savings, and for goods (teeth implants, new hips and knees) and services (such as holidays, LASIK).
Energy efficiency solutions or energy efficient goods could also be sold to other countries. And they’d reap the same benefits.
Just taking resources out to burn might bring short profit to few. But isn’t really helpful to the country or the world as a whole.
“….might bring short profit to few. But isn’t really helpful to the country or the world as a whole.”
Of course it isn’t Ralph, but when has seeking a higher aim and aspiration got in the way of profit(s) -Particularly in a casino society: that after Big Bang, and the sell-off of the nation’s assets to the highest bidder (the shams?)