UK Shale Gas

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend wait until I complete this point? I will come to him in a moment. His constituency is at the other end of Salford from mine, and I know that he will disagree with what I say.

As we heard extensively from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, there is talk of a community bonus of £100,000 per well. The difficulty is that it is out of scale with the potential loss in house values that people will see. The 1% of any revenue will also come along far too late. If someone’s house has lost value and they have become fed up and moved away, they will not be helped by 1% of revenue.

[Graham Stringer]

Outside London and the south-east, the highest house prices in the country are in Aberdeen, due to the benefit of the oil industry in the North sea. Eventually, the improvements in the economy if shale gas is exploited are likely to lead to a rebalancing of the UK economy and higher house prices.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is entitled to that view, but I do not agree with him.

There are serious concerns about the impact of fracking on communities. I want to quote from the International Energy Agency’s “Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas”:

“Producing unconventional gas is an intensive industrial process, generally imposing a larger environmental footprint than conventional gas development. More wells are often needed…The scale of development can have major implications for local communities, land use and water resources. Serious hazards, including the potential for air pollution and for contamination of surface and groundwater, must be successfully addressed.”

Those are the issues and concerns that are starting to bear down on my constituents, and the notion that anyone living in an area where such things were being contemplated would see house price increases is just not realistic.

I want also to quote from a report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research produced by local academics at the university of Manchester:

“The depth of shale gas extraction gives rise to major challenges in identifying categorically pathways of contamination of groundwater by chemicals used in the extraction process. An analysis of these substances suggests that many have toxic, carcinogenic or other hazardous properties. There is considerable anecdotal evidence from the US that contamination of both ground and surface water has occurred in a range of cases.”

The report also states that

“there are a number of documented examples of pollution events owing to poor construction and operator error. There are reports of incidents involving contamination of ground and surface waters with contaminants such as brine, unidentified chemicals, natural gas, sulphates, and hydrocarbons”.

Government Members appear to be saying “Nonsense.” I think I heard the Minister say it too, so I hope he can give me information that I can pass on to my constituents that will help to settle their minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dan Byles]

Although I said that we would be using broadly the same amount of gas, the hon. Gentleman is right; we will probably be using it in a different way, for back-up and peaking plant, which clearly would be less efficient—ceteris paribus—than using it for base load.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I had not noticed that the air conditioning had changed.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whom I tend to either agree or disagree with 100%. Today I am afraid it is the second of those two positions.

There have been many excellent speeches on both sides, and I will try not to say what I was going to say, because that would mean repeating some of the points that have been made; instead, let me deal with some of the facts and issues that have come up.

One of the last points to be made was about water. While relatively little water is used, it has not been pointed out that there is, in most cases, a mile of rock between where the fracking takes place and the water table, so contamination is very unlikely.

On house prices, I was responsible, as chair of Manchester airport, for building the second runway there. At the bottom of it is a beautiful Cheshire village called Style. When the runway was being built, people claimed that house prices there would go down, but the only time prices were affected was during the campaign against the runway, when there were lots of signs up in the village. As soon as the campaign went away, house prices went up, even though the runway was taking very large planes. The fact is that house prices are related to economic activity, so my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) can reassure her constituents that house prices will not be brought down.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is important to tell my hon. Friend that I already have evidence that, because of these developments, people are planning to move out of the area, which I would not want to happen, while others have said they will not move into the area. This really is having an impact.

[Graham Stringer]

That is completely consistent with what I was saying—that the fear of the activity, rather than the activity itself, is the problem.

I want now to move on to the science and to speak as a scientist. I agree with virtually everything the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, apart from when he completely accepted what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. We must remember that it involves a political process, which lies on top of a number of scientific papers; its work is not necessarily put together by scientists themselves.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion could be accused of being unrealistically precise in her comments about what is likely to happen in the climate over the coming years, and I would make two simple points about the science. First, I have talked to most of the leading scientists on climate change in this country and in the United States, and there is no known way of distinguishing natural variations in the climate from impacts caused by carbon dioxide—nobody knows how to do that.

Secondly, the models that have been used to predict the increase in temperatures have all been wrong. In the Met Office, we have the biggest supercomputers in the world, which are great at back-projecting climate, but their projections of climate into the future have all been inaccurate. That is just an indication that there is something unknown about the science, which is not to say that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, because it clearly is, and it has been known as such for a long time. However, an artificial precision is being introduced into the debate, and it really should not be there. We do not, therefore, often talk about the science.

My next point is about the costs of all the different policies and the price that will result. An interesting report by Liberum Capital indicates the difference between the cost of the Government’s policies on replacing the sources of our energy and the cost of replacing like with like. It finds that there is a difference of more than £200 billion between the two, and that will come out somewhere in the price of gas to our constituents.

The Government’s energy policy is based on taking a long-term position on the price of gas and oil—fossil fuels. Essentially, they are betting the house, the country or hundreds of billions of pounds that the price of fossil fuel will continue to rise. If that happens, and if renewables are put in place, they are likely to win their bet—and it is a bet. They will have to find the capital to fund those renewable energy supplies, but given that prices of publicly quoted shares in the European renewables market have dropped below their level in 2004-05, that looks very unlikely. If the Government lose their bet, our constituents will pay more for their energy than they should.

[David Mowat]

I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman has just made about renewables and potential increases in the price of fossil fuels. Effectively, the Government’s strategy is to use renewables as a hedge against increased fossil fuel prices. That is not altogether unreasonable, is it?

[Graham Stringer]

It would not be if it was just a hedge and it was not artificially pushing the cost of gas and other energy supplies up by holding them in reserve. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is a hedge, but it is a very expensive hedge indeed.

There are two reasons for being against fracking, and the debate has been helpful in clarifying some of the facts. One—it is a completely reasonable to make this point on behalf of constituents—is that people worry when they hear that there is to be fracking in their area. It is therefore quite reasonable for them to ask for the good health and safety standards and good environmental standards that apply elsewhere in the country. However, it is not reasonable to push those standards to the point where the fracking does not happen. When the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talks about the precautionary principle, that is really a way of trying to stop everything. She really should read the Science and Technology Committee report from the previous Session on the precautionary principle, which is often quoted, but it is often used to prevent anything from happening.

Let me give an example. One often has to use the best available evidence to do something, and the reason we are not getting protected areas in the sea at the moment is that the Government are looking for more and more scientific evidence when we should be using the scientific evidence available. If the hon. Lady wants to stop fracking by using the precautionary principle, she is likely to do that, but I think we have to look at the scientific evidence we have and apply high environmental standards.

Finally, I want to put the Government’s energy policy, which is not coherent, in the context of what is happening on emissions worldwide. Much of the Government’s policy is based on reducing emissions, in the belief that that will bring down global warming and slow down or stop climate change. However, the policy is failing, and emissions are going up. With emissions, one has to deal with imported goods, which are often created using industrial processes that create more carbon dioxide than processes here do. If we push up the price of energy here, we will export production to China, India and other places and increase the amount of carbon dioxide. That is a deindustrialisation policy, and I hope that, by exploiting shale gas in a safe and environmentally responsible way, we can start reindustrialising this country and creating the 72,000 jobs or more that it has been predicted will come from exploiting shale gas.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I apologise; it is probably my fault. Just to be clear, the price of solar is something upwards of 45 times the price of electricity produced from gas at the moment.

As for the climate change issues around shale gas, or unconventional gas, I would take hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of climate change more seriously—I am inclined to think that we should address it—if they took a different attitude to nuclear power, the technology that is far and away the most likely, worldwide, to make a difference at scale to carbon emissions.

I want to consider whether shale gas will affect the UK economy. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made an interesting speech about the necessary volume of wells. I was not aware of what he said and found his numbers hard to believe, but if they are true, the point is interesting and important. Let us be clear: shale gas is already having a massive influence on the UK economy, because right now one of our major industrial competitors, the US, has energy prices and therefore electricity prices that are a quarter of ours. It has feedstock prices as an input to the global gas industry and the petrochemicals industry that are a quarter of ours. That is already making a difference at the margins. Some industries are already deciding not to invest in the UK and to bring petrochemicals and chemicals back to the US—indeed, out of China, let alone Europe. Shale gas is already having a massive impact on the UK economy, and it is nonsense to pretend that anything we say in this debate, or that the Government do, will make any difference to that.

[Graham Stringer]

One of the points that has not been made is that there is a slight assumption that shale gas is just methane. It is actually ethane and propane as well, and those can be used as feedstock to our chemical industry, lowering chemical prices and making the industry more competitive.

[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.