Scotland won’t exploit its unconventional oil and gas reserves following a decision by the Scottish government to ban fracking.
A moratorium on fracking has been in place since January 2015 and yesterday’s announcement of an outright ban follows a four-month public consultation that received over 60,000 responses.
According to the Scottish government, approximately 99 per cent of the consultation responses were opposed to fracking and fewer than one per cent were in favour.
Those opposed to fracking emphasised the potential for significant, long-lasting negative impacts on communities, health, environment, and climate; expressed scepticism about the ability of regulation to mitigate negative impacts; and were unconvinced about the value of any economic benefit or the contribution of unconventional oil and gas to Scotland’s energy mix.
Paul Wheelhouse, minister for Business, Innovation and Energy said: “Having taken account of the interests of the environment, our economy, public health and the overwhelming majority of public opinion, the decision I am announcing today means fracking cannot and will not take place in Scotland.
“The views expressed through our consultation demonstrated that communities across Scotland, particularly in densely populated areas where developments could potentially take place, are not convinced there is a strong national economic argument when balanced against the risk and disruption they anticipate in areas, such as transport, pollution and crucially, their health and wellbeing.
“Scotland’s chemicals industry has conveyed strong views on the potential impact of shale on the sector. I want to be clear that regardless of our position on unconventional oil and gas, our support for Scotland’s industrial base and manufacturing is unwavering.”
Reacting to yesterday’s announcement, Prof Stuart Haszeldine, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, said: “The consultation replies from citizens shows they are very clearly prepared to forgo the doubtful possibility of short-term financial gain for the longer term benefits of moving to a cleaner economy and air quality. This is continuing the decline of fossil fuels, and moving to a different sort of wealth.”
Reserves
In 2014 the British Geological Survey’s report of the resources in the Midland Valley, Scotland, suggested there is a modest amount of gas and oil in place. The central estimate of shale gas in place is 80 trillion cubic feet, whilst the central estimate for shale oil in place is six billion barrels of oil.
By comparison, a central estimate for Bowland shale in northern England comes to 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas in place, and a central estimate of 4.4 billion barrels of oil in place in the Weald basin situated in southern England.
Reserves that could be extracted in the Midland Valley were thought to be considerably lower than the estimate. A statement issued by the former UK government Department for Energy & Climate Change in June, 2014 said: “Estimates are particularly uncertain [in the Midland Valley] because the area has fewer historic wells and less seismic data than previous study areas. The complex geology of the area and historic mine workings means that exploratory drilling and testing is even more important to determine how much can be recovered.”
Engineers have a vital role to play in explaining the benefits of fracking
While I have not seen the Consultation document or questionnaires sent out, this is obvioiusly more SNP lunacy. These polls are always more political than sensible: the questions are leading and the 60,000 respondents could well be NIMBYs or “green no matter what the consequences are” types. I am sure that if the cost / benefit were considered a sensible response would be obtained as the Scottish people are by tradition progressive.
This attitude to technology by the controlling elite(= wealthy-arty-classes) is frightening as the UK is ploughing its own long-term death furrow by abandoning carbon fuels, while most of the world increase theirs massively. Professor Heseltine’s statement about ” a different sort of wealth” probably means serious poverty for the masses.
Have you compared (as an sane and sensible engineer who garners facts before commenting) the relative size of Scotland’s potential onshore “gas” finds versus say the North of England fields, and compared the geology of the USA and that of mainland UK?
No one really knows how much gas is available through fracking: there are a few opinions, but until exploration is allowed we will never know. The main opposition that has been occurring everywhere is NIMBYISM, and obviously self-interest is justifiable and we would all protect our assets. We are at present subject to many poorly-founded “Fear campaigns” that are being used to justify non-economic investments.
Does England supply electricity to Scotland via the grid? If so lets stop!
The national grid website shows that the movement of energy across the country is very much north to south. Scotland has held a long standing position as a net exporter of electricity, it generates more than it uses however some large coal and nuclear stations are now closed or due to close around 2020 so that gap will need plugged.
Scotland used to provide energy to England, but recent manipulations of the biased generation market forced power stations to close.
No they don’t. You are meant to be an engineer. Look it up
Wonderful, thank you Scotland’s people and their government.
Welcome to the dark ages Scotland – literally. As existing carbon fuels diminish, nuclear is a no-go – wind is inconsistent and wave energy still its its infancy – where is this energy mix that the respondents wish for. Its frightening that 60,000 respondents ( approx 1.5% of the voting population) has driven this decision.
Possibly you should have taken part. It was a public consultation. I take it you don’t vote either.
Did he not? I did not see his participation mentioned
The old adage, there is nothing in the world politicians can’t make worse is applicable here.
Fracking is not the enemy of the environment it has been accused of being. What this latest silly decision by the SNP dominated government of Scotland does, is deny Scotland the opportunity to extract and take advantage of its natural resources.
A truly depressing decision for Scotland in all ways.
Let us hope that the peoples south of the border can prove up the energy efficiencies and down the environmental concerns as we adopt fraccing in a small way ahead of complete adoption.
There will be ample opportunity to adopt the practice in the north after the south has proven the practice and dispelled the myths surrounding environmental concerns.
It’s about time we reduced our use of fossil fuels, their burning is obviously having an effect on the environment. It’s our inefficient use of energy and resources which is the problem – commuting to work just to sit in front of a computer, shipping products thousands of miles just becasue it’s a bit cheaper overall, producing fancy packaging which is thrown away, driving huge SUVs just to show off. We can all use less and avoid the need for fracking in the first place, embracing renewables where we can, and driving energy efficiency further. Fracking is pretty inefficient anyway, uses millions of litres of water per frack and injects chemicals into the rock formations, the long-term result of which can’t be good. Think of the overall picture in a common-sense way, we only have one planet so let’s avoid polluting the environment just so we can “max out” our lifestyles in the short term.
I understand that there are plans to import fracked gas ( to Grangemouth ) from the USA (so perhaps this a NIMBY issue in Scotland politics) ; this should enable the supplementation of the renewable electricity (in Scotland) – when it is being intermittent (and also for those peak loads). And so fracked gas will be there to help keep the dark nights away…?
This sums up the SNP. Don’t do what’s right, do what’s popular.
Tony Blair has a lot to answer for with his obsession for devolved, regional government.
The decision will not be based on simply that survey, but a variety of factors – no government is that stupid – they all do one thing while saying another. Indicating it is down to people power is a good soundbite. You can guarantee if the lights did go out, public opinion would soon change. Plus, it makes sense to hold onto any un-tapped resources for the future if there is no pressing need.
Dark ages – quite the opposite. Renewable is the only way forward long term and storage issues can be solved. Just look at what Elon Musk is doing, particularly in Australia. In 100 years time we’re going to wish we hadn’t set fire to our hydrocarbon resources and kept them for industrial purposes instead. Nuclear is a stupid energy source, plants take decades to design, build and come on line and always go way over budget. Also, there is still no solution to the waste issue. As Einstein said – nuclear is a hell of a complicated way to boil water – If we can design a nuclear plant, we can surely work out a way of storing energy overnight?
Politics does NOT come into this. Aside from the strong public consultation results against this process, there was a cross party support for a ban. There are many questions around the potential consequences of pressurising the ground which will occur in an unbounded, unmanaged and uncontrolled strata. If a problem occurs there is no mitigation possible. Dismissing realistic concerns about the hazards as myths is extremely unhelpful. The case for fracking in this geologically dubious area has not been made, and while we are striving to move away from dependance on fossil fuels the risks are considered too great by the majority. If there is a strategic long term case for fracking then let it be made and examined. At present we don’t need it. And merely accepting a large multinational company’s word that there won’t be a problem does not mitigate the consequences if it goes wrong. Remember big business has a habit, for profit making reasons, of dismissing hazards that undermine their case. Unfortunately each site that is proposed has to be examined in isolation as the geography will be different from every where else so while the engineering model works in one location it does not mean it will anywhere else. Big business can and does walk away from the problems it creates leaving the local population to pick up the pieces – if they can. If the developers had put effort into producing viable solutions to what is anticipated to go wrong then they may have had a different outcome. Pretending there aren’t any is not the answer.
There’s a good chance shale gas could reduce our debt, we have zero control over Russian gas import prices. An adjustment of the Barnett formula should be imposed if Scotland has no intention of pulling their own weight to reduce the debt.
According to the Office of National Statistics, the UK imports very little, if any, gas from Russia. Over 60 per cent of imports come from Norway, and almost 30 per cent, in the form of LNG, from Qatar. A small proportion of imports from the Netherlands — which comprise less than ten per cent of total imports — may have originated in Russia.
Excellent post. It’s also worth noting the limited quantity of gas that had been identified as being able to be recovered from these Scottish fields. We’re not talking about the North Sea here when it comes to wealth generation.
I agree that it’s not worth the risk until the environmental impact of the process can be proven to be absolutely minimal.
Let the fossil fuels stay in the ground, we do not need them. However, you all, Dr. Tim Fox included, who want fracking, please do it in your own backyard. You also think that our civilization will collapse without it and the rest of fossil fuel extraction and use, while the contrary is literally true, in the sense that your and your neighbors’ (who were not asked if they want it or not) houses are collapsing due to fracking. How probable is fracking induced damage? Check it here:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1035/ofr20161035ver1_1.pdf
That is only one of the major negative externalities of fracking, it is not included in the price of fuel. The concern about “widows and orphans” is muted by the latter fact.
It might be educational for those who condemn fossil fuels to try living their lives without using any.
After two days I guarantee, they would have a slightly more sensible view of the benefits fossil fuels bring to our lives.
The costs outweigh the benefits of fossil fuels, by a huge ratio. Which is why a significant number of people, myself included, are abandoning them with no problems whatsoever. Is it fast enough? No. Is it complete? No. Are we getting there? Yes.
One part of the hidden cost of fossil fuels equaled $5.3 trillion in 2015. So, add it to the cost/benefit analysis and see if fossil fuels are still a wonderful thing in our lives.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
Another reason to say good-bye, adieu to fossil fuels, with no regrets, is that they are becoming history like other energy sources in the past (e.g. whale oil, fortunately in time before we wiped out these beautiful animals), we are just moving on to better, cleaner, renewable, sustainable sources:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/fossil-fuels-are-finished-the-rest-is-just-detail-71574/
Wow, at some of the comments on here, Fracking is good for you, No fracking is good for the wealthiest at the expense of the energy poor. When are people going to wake up to the simple fact that UK government is not democratic in the slightest. The SNP have at least consulted the public, Westminster has not given the rest of the UK that choice. If fracking was so non destructive, then why has the UK government axed plans for fracking near protected nature sites ? and why is it trying to fast track without public consent in England ?
With the motor industry and engineering in general, Volvo is an example, moving away from fossil fuels, why is this Conservative Government going against all else. Simple it is about money for the wealthiest. Rather than put money into the Engineering money, they will take the easy option of everyone else being austere whilst they get rich like fat little piggies. God Bless the SNP, wish we had them.
An entirely political decision.
While wanting to, but not committing to fracking for some years, the SNP’s slide in the polls means that they are even more desperate for votes than they have been.
Labour on the other hand, have been no better. Seeing popular opposition to fracking they used this as a way of attacking the SNP Government.
Populism, red in tooth and claw.