Dan Byles
Main Page: Dan Byles (Conservative - North Warwickshire)(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas
I have answered that point.
Ministers have given us an industry-led community benefit scheme. It was discussed at length on Tuesday and will be consulted on in the autumn. It is expected to yield £100,000 in community benefits per drilling pad, each with several wells, plus 1% of revenues. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made a crucial point about the importance of additionality when it comes to such payouts, over and above what localities would normally expect under local government or other funding systems.
I share those concerns, not least in light of recent comments from the chief executive of shale gas explorer IGas, who said that local communities should be won over to shale gas fracking by being rewarded with more teachers in primary schools or more officers on the beat. Given the coalition Government’s cuts to crucial public sector services and local authority budgets, it would be outrageous if communities were faced with a situation in which the only way to secure adequate numbers of teachers or policemen and women was by accepting a giant fracking rig in their back yard.
The other recent development discussed on Tuesday is the creation of a new Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil. The Minister explained its co-ordination role, which aims
“to accelerate the development of shale responsibly.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 215WH.]
The new office has been given the role of cheerleader-in-chief for the shale gas industry, as well as being tasked with ensuring that shale development remains safe and the environment protected. We heard that it would also play a third role, providing information to the public on apparent myths to help people separate fact from fiction. However, the office and the Minister’s whole Department are so rampantly pro-shale gas that I cannot see how the public will have confidence or trust in them either to maintain the highest safety and environmental standards or to provide independent, credible, non-biased information about the risks of shale gas development. How does the Minister intend to manage that perceived conflict of interest?
During the rest of my remarks, I will concentrate on some crucial questions about shale gas development in the UK. First, do we understand fully the local environmental and health risks of shale gas and what our constituents and the general public think about fracking, and can regulation and the OUGO adequately address such risks and concerns? Secondly, does shale gas really have the potential to deliver lower-cost gas power and reduce energy bills, as the Chancellor and other fracking enthusiasts claim? Thirdly, is drilling for shale gas a sensible approach to addressing concerns about future energy security? Finally, is shale gas development compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? I will set out why, sadly, I believe that the answer to all those questions is no, and why shale gas ultimately cannot and should not have a role in a secure and affordable energy system that is consistent with the UK’s climate change commitments.
On the environmental impacts, I am sure that I am not alone in having been contacted by many constituents concerned about a wide range of environmental and health risks from shale gas. I worry that Ministers and those with financial links to shale gas companies are quick to dismiss people’s concerns, especially about water resources. The International Energy Agency, not known for an overtly environmental perspective or for hyperbole, states:
“The scale of development can have major implications for local communities, land use and water resources.”
It goes on to list serious hazards
“including the potential for air pollution and for contamination of surface and groundwater”.
The number of wells would, of course, depend on how much extractible gas there is and the geological conditions. Huge uncertainties remain, so all estimates are assumptions, but a study by Bloomberg based on average well extraction data from the US, rather than just sweet spots, found that meeting North sea production levels of 1,460 billion cubic feet and sustaining those levels for 10 years would require between 10,000 and 20,000 shale gas wells. Does the Minister think that the visual impact of so many drilling rigs and the associated traffic would be considered preferable to the aesthetics of wind turbines, for example?
On Tuesday, Balcombe residents delivered a petition to the Environment Agency in respect of Cuadrilla’s application for a mining waste permit for its operations in that area. It states:
“We the undersigned residents of Balcombe and its surrounds strongly object to the activities of Cuadrilla and demand that you take all possible measures to ensure the cessation of its activities with immediate effect, on the grounds that it poses an unacceptable threat to our water supply, air purity and overall environment.”
It is wrong for Ministers to dismiss such concerns and to suggest that local opposition stems from a misunderstanding of the impact of shale gas extraction. Local campaigners I have met are not stupid or scaremongering. They are extremely well read and well informed. Last year, a survey by Balcombe parish council found that 82% of residents wanted their local elected representatives to oppose fracking. That gives a good overview of people’s concerns, which include issues such as the increase in road traffic through the village, the pollution of water supplies, the impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty and the effect on property values.
Opposition to fracking goes way beyond organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. One example this week is the Quakers, who issued a statement on the EU’s climate and energy package and said of shale gas:
“This is not an option for replacing coal power. The greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of a well (including after decommissioning) are too high to enable us to reach our long-term climate targets and stay within the vital 2°C limit, especially given the high risk of methane leakage.”
It continued:
“The fracking process contaminates water and soils causing major concerns for the environment and public health.”
Even the National Farmers Union has raised concern that fracking represents an additional water user, which could increase water stress in times of shortages, and what about the views of farmers in places where fracking is already established? In Alberta, Canada, the Canadian NFU has led calls for a moratorium, with the co-ordinator, who is a dairy farmer, warning last year:
“Many farmers in my area who either have direct experience with the destructive nature of hydro-fracking technology on their water wells or who have neighbours who have been affected have come to me with their concerns…our ability to produce good, wholesome food is at risk of being compromised by the widespread, virtually unregulated use of this dangerous process.”
The Minister has given assurances about robust regulation in the UK, but the implications of fracking for British farmers remains to be seen, not least in the light of increasing water scarcity and food price hikes. The Co-operative Group, which also farms, perhaps not coincidentally, is also calling for an end to the use of unconventional fossil fuels and for a massive upsurge in community renewables instead.
Another local concern is that leaks from well casings that have been inadequately completed or have subsequently failed are one route by which water and air pollution can occur. The first report from the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change said that the risks are
“no different to issues encountered when exploring the hydrocarbons and conventional geological formations”
and recommends that the Health and Safety Executive tests the integrity of wells before allowing drilling activity to be licensed. The Minister has indicated that such a regime will be put in place. I wonder whether those same assurances were given in the US and elsewhere.
New data from the Marcellus shale show that 6.6% of Pennsylvanian wells are leaking. Examination of studies of well leaks by various bodies in the US, Canada and Norway shows that it is likely that world leakage rates come in at between 5% and 20%. Will the Minister confirm whether there is any difference between well design in the US and the UK that makes that less likely here? Will he also say whether there is a register of the performance of existing UK wells? I have not been able to find one. Such a register would allow us to have an overall picture of leakage in the UK and would tell us a lot about the world-class regulation argument that is so easily bandied about.
The need for robust regulation was discussed in our debate on Tuesday, providing a brief respite from the regulation-bashing rhetoric that seems to be fashionable at the moment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) was present at that debate, and I am delighted that he spoke in favour of high environmental standards, in keeping with the gold standard that already applies to oil and gas regulation in the UK. However, last month alone, Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms leaked oil or other chemicals into the North sea on 55 occasions. I am not convinced that communities facing the prospect of shale gas drilling, albeit onshore for the time being, will find that reassuring.
The Minister says that robust regulation is now in place and that there is nothing to prevent licensees from bringing forward new drilling plans and seeking the necessary permissions. I worry that his Department is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the fracking companies that are rubbing their hands at the prospect of tax breaks and drilling permits, particularly in his treatment of legitimate public concerns as myths.
It was heartening to hear the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) speak of the need to put in place the highest environmental safeguards, as opposed to what is simply convenient for the industry. He also made the point that in addition to strong regulation, there must be sufficient resources to ensure that they are applied. The shadow Energy Secretary emphasised the importance of comprehensive monitoring. I would add that the remits and duties of the regulator also matter.
The proposed growth duty to be imposed on non-economic regulators such as the Environment Agency through the draft Deregulation Bill is of great concern in that respect. The Government claim that it will support growth without weakening environmental protection, but lawyers from the UK Environmental Law Association warn in their consultation response that
“A growth duty, as currently proposed, would make it harder for non-economic regulators to refuse environmentally damaging development, including those that threaten nationally important wildlife sites—even if the overall societal benefits of such a refusal are greater than the development.”
They continue:
“This arises because the proposed duty does not adequately reflect evidence about the economic value of the natural environment and the need to value it accordingly in decision making.”
Ministers have a lot of explaining to do before anyone will be persuaded that this growth duty is not simply the latest attempt to weaken crucial environmental and public health safeguards, capitulating to corporate lobbyists who want short-term profit-making to trump public interest.
An additional concern, which is almost entirely ignored in the UK but is at the centre of debates in the US, is the radon risk from fracked gas pumped directly into householders’ kitchen stoves and hobs. Two month ago, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was told in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), that
“Public Health England…is preparing a report identifying potential public health issues and concerns, including radon…that might be associated with aspects of hydraulic fracturing…The report is due out for public consultation in the summer. Once released for public consultation, the report will be freely available from the PHE website.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 570W.]
Subsequent follow-up by telephone with Public Health England this week established that the “summer” has become “later this year”. That seems to be a trend. Will the Minister explain the delay in publishing this research report when the public debate over fracking is moving ahead apace?
In brief, the concern raised in the US has been led by Dr Marvin Resnikoff, now of Radioactive Waste Management Associates, who has more than 50 years’ research experience in radiation hazards. My purpose in raising this matter is not to scaremonger, but simply to ensure that the risks are not ignored. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that aspect as well.
As chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I believe that the cost of energy policy decisions to householders, particularly those on low incomes, is an absolute priority. Current estimates suggest that fuel poverty now affects more than 6.5 million households throughout the UK. The Government’s figures show that rising wholesale gas prices are the overwhelming cause of higher energy prices, which raises questions about the economic merits of the gas strategy in which gas plays a big role long into the future, never mind that a gas-powered future would bust carbon budgets.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister both seem to think that shale gas could have a positive impact on gas prices and household fuel bills. Yesterday, the Department of Energy and Climate Change published a new report in what looks like a desperate attempt to create some evidence to back up those dubious claims. The Daily Telegraph thunders:
“Gas prices could fall by a quarter with shale drilling”.
But on closer examination, the document is all about ifs and buts.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
We all want evidence-based decision making, and it seems odd to say first that there is no evidence that shale gas will reduce prices, and when the Government investigate and commission a report, to say that they have done so in a desperate attempt to find something that looks like evidence. Surely we should welcome the Government’s commissioning of independent research so that we can have an evidence-based debate.
Caroline Lucas
I would certain welcome that if it were reflected in the sort of statements that we hear from the Government about shale gas, but it is not. Time and again I have had debates with Ministers when they have easily and quickly leapt to the defence of shale gas by saying that it will incontrovertibly lead to lower gas prices. That is the problem. There is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. If we all agree that the jury is out on that issue, I am pleased about that. The DECC report states that there is
“a high degree of uncertainty surrounding any price forecast.”
Let us look at what some of the energy market experts are saying about the cost question. Jamie Spiers, researcher at Imperial college, said that
“figures suggest that the cost of extracting UK shale gas reserves will exceed the price. This is a big issue that not been addressed very much.”
Eric Ollerenshaw
On balance, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. It has been put to me that, if the area were the first where fracking went ahead, the potential for university research, engineering and skills would be an advantage, but as I have tried to explain, against that is the fact that we have had one test drill, which caused an earth tremor. We have seen nothing else, and we need to see what one of these well pads does to the environment. No one has seen that yet.
Dan Byles
I know that my hon. Friend is looking at the issue carefully, as well he should. Does he agree that we will be able to answer these questions only if planning permission is granted for the next series of exploratory wells? Only when we have wells being drilled and operated can people look, sniff and prod, and we will then know what the wells look like and what the impact will be.
Eric Ollerenshaw
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but he must understand that we then get the argument that, because we have had exploratory wells, we obviously need to go ahead since we have spent all that money on exploration. My constituents need assurances that the wells are exploratory, that they are part of a pilot and that there is the possibility that we can close down the whole thing if something else goes wrong. Those are the kinds of assurance that they want.
The community fund that the Onshore Operators Group will apparently be in charge of will provide more money locally, but there are still questions about what the local community is. Will funds go to community groups, parish councils or even district councils in my area, such as Wyre borough council or Lancaster city council? They are all below county council level and there is a huge spread of locality between them. What will the money be spent on? Could it come in the form of cash payments, reduced energy bills, building community facilities, reduced council tax bills or affordable housing contributions? If that kind of money is spent in those ways, there are possible tax implications, which is how the problems with the Shetland Charitable Trust developed.
Barbara Keeley
That is interesting, and if the right hon. Gentleman has references that he wants to pass on for me to use in my constituency, he is welcome to do so.
We have read the various reports, and it is clear that there are things that need to be borne in mind, not least the potential effect of the shale gas industry’s environmental impact on my constituents. There are many points in the process at which groundwater contamination could occur, due to fracturing fluids or contaminants being mobilised from migration under the surface. There is also the contamination of land and surface water, and potentially groundwater via the surface route, arising from any kind of spillage. Right hon. and hon. Members who have lived in the vicinity of chemical processing industry plants—we have a number in the north-west—know that such things happen. I used to work alongside someone who had worked for ICI, who constantly told me about the evil soup they would get rid of on one particular day. Such things have happened, and people remember them.
The key point is that there will clearly be impacts on the land and the landscape from the drill rig, the well pads, storage ponds or tanks and access roads. People will experience noise and light pollution during the well drilling, and local traffic will be affected. All those impacts are not uncertain; they are certain.
We also know that seismic impacts are possible, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood has touched on that issue. The western part of Salford was previously mined for coal and has many quarries—unlike the eastern part, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) represents. I have already had experience in my constituency of part of a street of newly built houses falling backwards—subsidence is a hazard for home owners throughout the area. We have come across a study by geologists at Columbia university, who feel that large earthquakes can trigger, even from a great distance, smaller seismic reactions near waste water injection well pads. People read the studies and take away that fear.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me, so that I can pass the information on to my constituents, what research has been conducted into that domino effect. If, as we get into shale gas development in various places—not, I hope, in my constituency—there are further seismic impacts, will areas such as mine be affected?
Dan Byles
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the report, but it was, as she said, about geological waste water disposal, not about hydraulic fracturing. I believe that geological waste water disposal is already prohibited in this country, under a number of EU regulations. Last year’s Royal Society report considered closely the issue of induced seismicity and declared the risk of it to be very low.
Barbara Keeley
Those are interesting points, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he was at meetings with constituents of mine who have these fears, he would realise that it is very hard to persuade people who are personally affected by living next to a site.
I want to mention the Lancashire Wildlife Trust, because it is a key stakeholder in any proposals for gas exploration and exploitation at the site. The trust has a role in protecting and restoring the precious mosslands resource in Salford, which is adjacent to the site in question. The area of raised peat bog has suffered for decades from peat extraction, but we have just won council approval to refuse a licence for peat extraction—in which the trust played a key role—and people were feeling that things might get back to normal and calm down. The trust gave me the following statement:
“The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire considers that the most significant local issues for biodiversity are the impact of the footprint of the physical development (e.g. buildings, parking areas, waste water storage tanks and well-heads)”
on adjacent wildlife sites on the mosslands,
“and the safe disposal of the waste water. Any proposal for shale gas extraction should go through the full planning process including public consultation, compliance with EU Directives and a full Environmental Impact Assessment.”
I have concerns about planning, which I will come to. The statement continues:
“The Environmental Impact Assessment should disclose all chemicals involved in the process and identify the least damaging disposal route for the waste water.”
I am already getting questions from constituents that I cannot answer about what chemicals are involved in the process, so that is clearly very important to people.
The trust goes on the state that it
“will treat each planning application for energy generation on its own merits and we would expect there to be a net gain in biodiversity in line with current legislation, local planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework”.
The final point the trust makes, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, is that
“the precautionary principle should be adopted until adequate scientific evidence exists as to the environmental impacts.”
Dan Byles
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. I might have misheard her, but I think she said that she could not answer the questions about what chemicals are put into fracking fluid. If she looks on the Environment Agency website, she will see that they are listed in full, as required by the agency’s rules. That is entirely transparent.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, in the US shale gas drilling takes place right in the centre of a number of towns, such as Fort Worth. There are very considerable concerns about that, precisely on the grounds she refers to, not because shale gas will kill us all but because of particular concerns about how the shale gas is extracted: what happens with the waste water; what happens with the operation of the shale gas facility itself; and indeed the arrangements in the US relating to mineral rights that cause that drilling to take place. That would not be the case in this country, so I would not for a moment suggest that we will get a rash of shale gas wells in the middle of town, because there is an entirely different mineral regime in the UK. Nevertheless, she makes an important point.
How would those 100,000-plus wells be built? Well, as I have mentioned, it would be on the basis of pairs of football ground-sized pads across the country, concentrated in particular areas, perhaps including my own area. Hampshire and Sussex would be one area where there would be a fairly large number of those wells, if that is the sort of ambition we wanted to achieve.
Dan Byles
I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman has seen the report by the Institute of Directors that was published two months ago, which did some modelling of what a UK shale gas industry could look like. The IOD concluded that potentially we could meet up to a third of UK peak gas demand by 2030 from 100 two-hectare sites across the country.
Dr Whitehead
Well, those are entirely different points. At a particular point we could meet a larger supply, but what I am talking about is the overall question of supply over a period of time that would be possible to underwrite as a result of that sort of level of shale gas production—two different points.
The additional point that needs to be borne in mind about shale gas wells is that they do not last very long. Research from the US demonstrates that the average life of a shale gas well is about seven years or so. That is because shale gas wells produce a lot of gas to start with, but they deplete very rapidly. So, after about seven years they are producing negligible amounts, even—as has happened in a number of instances—on the basis of refracking. Refracking of a well produces a little increase, but the well still dries over a fairly short period. Therefore, to maintain that sort of level of production over a longer period, one would need to redrill a number of those wells. That is the sort of scenario that we would set for ourselves if we were to introduce a level of shale gas production that would support the sort of intervention in the gas market that I have mentioned.
My second concern is this: would shale gas production actually reduce prices for everybody, if we went for it to that extent? The clear answer is no. The intervention of the shale gas itself would not reduce prices because of the way that gas is traded on the international markets, particularly in this country. There are three international markets for gas trading. Gas is not particularly transportable, except through vessels such as liquefied natural gas carriers, which make a marginal difference in terms of supply; gas is largely transported by pipelines. Gas is traded on the European market, the far east market and the north American market. The north American market has seen substantial price decreases because of the concentration of shale gas within that one particular market. We would need to have a similar amount of shale gas produced throughout Europe in order for the European traded gas market to come down significantly in price compared with what it is currently, notwithstanding LNG imports coming into the European market overall. So shale gas might make a marginal difference over a period of time, but probably not—for the reasons I have given—unless there were fundamental changes in gas trading.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I can confirm that I have no financial interests outside of this place whatsoever. I sit on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I chair the all-party group on the environment and I also chair the all-party group on unconventional oil and gas. “Unconventional gas”—that is what we call shale gas, which is a bit of a misnomer, because it really is just gas. It is the same gas that we use to heat 83% of our homes and to generate 30% to 40% of our electricity.
Accessing gas from shale rock is not new. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said that gas has been hydraulically fracked in the US since 1949, but he may not be aware that the first exploratory shale gas well drilled in the UK was in 1875, in Netherfield in the south of England. It was an academic activity at that time, but the first commercial shale gas wells in Europe were drilled in northern Spain in the 1950s. Hydraulic fracturing itself is not a new or an unknown process, as my right hon. Friend has already said.
I want there to be a calm debate about this subject, informed by the evidence. Sadly, there is too much rhetoric around the entire shale gas debate, often—it has to be said—on both sides of the debate. Whenever anybody uses the phrase “shale gas bonanza”, I cringe as well. My view is that the evidence to date shows that shale gas can be accessed safely, if operations are done to a high standard and with effective regulation. That is backed up by a growing library of research from reputable expert organisations, such as the Royal Society, the International Energy Agency, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and others. The weight of evidence so far shows that unconventional gas can be developed safely, with effective regulation.
Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether to use gas. It is important to state that, because sometimes this debate strays into a discussion about the gas strategy. This is a debate about where we get the gas we use from. Under the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s central forecast scenario, we will be using broadly the same amount of gas in 2030 that we do today. The trouble is that both the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Institute of Directors estimate that by 2030 we will be importing up to 80% of our gas, at a cost of some £15 billion a year. That gas will come from Norway and Qatar and in future, probably, from Russia. It will include liquefied natural gas that has to be liquefied, transported and re-gasified. I have no confidence that Russian gas is produced and transported to higher, or even the same, environmental standards as gas in the UK.
Graham Stringer
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that not only would that gas be expensive because it is being imported, but the price would be artificially forced up, because under the Government’s scenario it is being kept for back-up supplies and is therefore used inefficiently? Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the Government’s position, it would be better if gas were used as a main supply for energy.
Dr Whitehead
Does the hon. Gentleman concur—I think that he already is concurring—that the notion of that supply might make a difference to our balance of payments, but because one would purchase those supplies through the European market, and could not do otherwise, the cost would be based on the prevailing price in that market at that time, not on an artificial price for the UK?
Dan Byles
I agree. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could accuse me of saying that lower prices is the reason why we should do this. In fact, later on I will mention other reasons why this is useful for the UK economy. Actually, lower prices are not the be-all and end-all of why we should develop shale gas, because, of course, we are part of a European gas market.
In terms of importing LNG, the Committee on Climate Change said:
“Our recent assessment of lifecycle emissions showed that well regulated shale gas production within the UK could potentially have lower lifecycle emissions than imported liquefied natural gas.”
The IOD, in a comprehensive report published two months ago, estimated that a domestic UK shale gas industry could, by 2030, halve our import requirement and meet up to a third of peak UK gas demand. The key thing here is that, unlike imported gas, every pound’s worth of domestic gas that we produce generates tax revenue for the Government—for the nation, not the Government; I am not socialist—and jobs. The IOD estimates up to 74,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs across the country.
With lower imports and lower life-cycle emissions than LNG, tax revenues, jobs and inward investment, an argument does not have to be made about the price of gas to argue that developing a UK shale gas industry could bring tangible economic benefits to the country. A few days ago in this Chamber, we debated the need for those tangible economic benefits to be shared directly with the local community, where shale gas is likely to be developed, in the forms of jobs and infrastructure and the community benefit fund, as we discussed. That is right. Communities that host shale gas developments should benefit from what are, in effect, their own natural resources.
It is right—I agree with hon. Members who have said it today—that industry and Government need to do more work to explain to people many of the basic facts and processes of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing. It is true that people get concerned, particularly about uncertainty. I agree, again, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who said that we have heard some scary and inaccurate comments today, from Members of Parliament.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This issue is developing in my constituency, and the companies are not helping themselves at all, because they constantly minimise everything, saying that there will be no disturbance, no traffic movement and that people will hardly even notice that this is there. I say that this is a large footprint industrial process, but they never use such terms themselves. It is about time we started to level with our communities.
Dan Byles
I agree. If companies are implying that there will be almost no impact whatever, they should look at that. I often make the point that this is an industrial process, although I am making a slightly different point when I say it. I am saying that this is not a scary process; it is simply an industrial process that should be managed like any others. In my experience of looking at new nuclear at Hinkley and at this, most people are often more concerned about the generic construction type blight—about truck movements, and so on—than about the intrinsic nature of a nuclear power station or shale gas.
I want briefly to mention a few points that have already been made. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering were commissioned by the Government last year to investigate induced seismicity—earthquakes, for want of a better word—and they were clear in their findings: the intensity of the earthquakes caused or induced by hydraulic fracturing was lower than natural UK background seismic activity.
We heard that the public do not want it. I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that people do not want shale gas or fracking. Actually, only one organisation that I am aware of—Nottingham university—has been conducting regular background public opinion monitoring. Since 2010, it has monitored background public opinion on shale gas, approximately every quarter, using YouGov, with proper balanced samples. It has found that acceptance of shale gas is slowly rising and fears about it are slowly falling. Its most recent survey, with 2,200 respondents, done in the past month or so, found that levels of recognition are rising—more than 60% of people know what shale gas is when asked—and of those who can identify what it is, nearly 60%, although not quite, say that fracking should be allowed. The evidence is not clear that people are, on the whole, in aggregate, afraid of or concerned about fracking. I think people recognise it for what it is: that it is not particularly scary; that it needs to be managed properly; but that it could benefit the country.
Impact on water resources has been mentioned as well. I am not talking so much about fears about pollution of water, but about access to and quantities of water. Again, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering assessed the impact of water use. They concluded:
“estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month; the amount needed to run a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant for 12 hours; and the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities’ region in north west England every hour”.
The idea that access to quantities of water is an issue is probably another myth that needs to be busted.
Dr Whitehead
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of water would not be on a regular basis over 10 years, but would be intensive during the period of fracking, re-fracking and clearing up?
Dan Byles
The hon. Gentleman is right. It peaks and then trails off, but in that entire 10-year period, including the peak, it is one hour’s worth of lost water from United Utilities. I agree with him.
On the impact on climate change, I find that often people who oppose shale gas increasingly no longer refer to earthquakes and some other issues, because I think a lot of people understand now that that is not an issue. The most common issue being raised with me now is the one that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, in respect of bigger picture climate change issues, with people saying that fossil fuels should stay in the ground. There is a discussion to be had in that regard, but I still believe that the elephant in the room for climate change is coal. Some 600 GW of new, unabated coal-fired plants are estimated to be coming online globally by 2030. I am amazed at the effort being put into opposing gas by some people when they should be opposing coal.
I shall end by quoting the Committee on Climate Change, from its report published in May this year. It said:
“The overall picture, therefore, is one in which well regulated production of shale gas could have economic benefits to the UK, in a manner consistent with our emissions targets, while reducing our dependence on imported gas.”
Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will give them an extra 15 seconds.
Mr David Amess (in the Chair)
Members will be pleased that the air conditioning has now been fixed. They will now feel better.
David Mowat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. He is completely right. Indeed, it would be more accurate for us to talk about unconventional gas than about shale gas, because coal gas is also part of what we are discussing.
Clearly, there is already an impact on the UK economy. I used to do a lot of work on the correlation between energy prices and GDP. They are closely correlated, and particularly so if we are trying to rebalance the economy back towards manufacturing, chemicals, aluminium, steel and chlorine production, and all that goes with that. We cannot do that if we have differentially higher energy prices than our competitors. I refer mainly to the US, although there is increasing concern that the rest of Europe is taking a different path from the UK on carbon taxes, and so on. It is right to let shale gas go ahead and let the market define prices and how things will work.
In the US, the gas price has fallen from $12 per million British thermal units to about $3. The cost of importing liquefied natural gas, if its export is allowed, is about $5. That implies a cap on European gas prices if there were a free market; and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is right to say that there are three gas markets currently. Such a move would imply a cap of about $8 or $9, which is considerably lower than now, although I accept that for strategic reasons the US Government might not agree to export any gas at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) made an excellent point about climate change. The issue about climate change and gas emissions is how we get coal out of the system. The UK still produces 70% of its energy from coal and oil and something like 3% or 4% from renewables, taking into account transport as well as electricity production. The UK has lower carbon emissions per head and per unit of GDP than nearly every country in Europe, in spite of the fact that we have less in the way of renewables. The reason is that we burn less coal than most countries in Europe. Incredibly, apparently aided and abetted by members of the Green party in Germany, a programme has kicked off there to build 10 or 12 unabated coal-fired power stations.
David Mowat
They will burn, as my hon. Friend says, a dirty coal. It is extraordinary that that is happening right now in the EU, and even more extraordinary that there appear to be members of the Green party in that country’s Government while it is happening—the same Green party that purports to care about carbon emissions and climate change.