Energy Bill
Debate between Dan Byles and Alan Whitehead(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. There is the question of what happens to the carbon dioxide subsequently and how it is injected. In Canada, it is injected into additionally drilled wells on land; there is a different process of injection offshore. At the Saskatchewan power station, the process involves the use of carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, although most of it stays on the ground after the process in any event.
UK Shale Gas
Debate between Dan Byles and Alan Whitehead(11 years, 2 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
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.
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.
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.