Slashdot Mirror
Geologists Say UK Shale Deposits Hold Vast Energy Reserves
fishmike writes with this news snipped from a Reuters story: "Britain may have enough offshore shale gas to catapult it into the top ranks of global producers, energy experts now believe, and while production costs are still very high, new U.S. technology should eventually make reserves commercially viable. UK offshore reserves of shale gas could exceed one thousand trillion cubic feet (tcf), compared to current rates of UK gas consumption of 3.5 tcf a year, or five times the latest estimate of onshore shale gas of 200 trillion cubic feet."
Shale gas and oil is still fossil fuel, and we are still threatened by climate changes due to the increase of greenhouse gases, aren't we? Or is the Sun going to dim and save us all?
Climate change is here and now. The Earth is already irretrievably changed from the state it was in even one hundred years ago. We must make the best of a bad situation. Greater energy efficiency would be a good way to start.
The only hope is to develop alternatives that do not require burning of precious resources for energy. Given the many irreplaceable uses that oil and gas have beyond energy, not investing enough into research of safe and plentiful alternatives seems like a much bigger folly than even tolerating Khamenei, Chavez or even Putkin.
After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?
I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach.
I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."
My work here is dung.
Get used to it. This is one of those technologies we can't afford not to exploit.
The people most enthusiastic about it are the eastern Europeans... it means freedom from Russian energy supplies. And I suspect the Israelis are looking into it rather deeply now that the Egyptians are interfering with their natural gas supply.
This technology is going to mean liberation and stability for nations... against those pros you're going to need some substantive cons.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?
Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.
Ah, the mighty and breathless media not understanding (again) that reserves != recoverable. There's a lot of water on the planet but not much of it is actually drinkable or in a form available to drink. Furthermore, the process to remove said shale "gas" involves seismic activity and a nasty, nasty (and highly secret) brew of toxic chemicals.
DaveyJJ
I don't know about you but most of my ancestors are dead and on their way to trying to become fossil fuels.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
Anyone know whether this would belong to Scotland or England should the UK break up?
It's a good question because despite most of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, I've heard that England is currently laying claim to all territory off Scotland beyond 20 miles from the coast; Though as I cannot find a good citation, I cannot fully guarantee truth of this. Can anyone back this up or prove it false?
Look I'm as concerned (and convinced) about environmental damage and global warming as anyone. But finding immense reserves of natural gas in the U.S. and now the UK can only be a good thing. It should buy us a few decades of relatively cheap, relatively low carbon producing (well at least compared to coal and oil shale) energy. If it's cheap enough (or if we aren't too cheap ourselves) we can use the energy to PULL CO2 from the atmosphere (I've heard a measly 10% increase in the cost of electricity would pay for it!).
Ok, if we insist on being idiots, we're still gonna get somewhat screwed by global warming, but hopefully we won't lose more than a few million species and displace no more than a few hundred million people (*SIGH*). The environmental damage from shale gas, while significant, is on a local level and the earthquakes are nothing to be afraid of (I'm from CA so I know earthquakes). Sorry for the low expectations but I'll take this as GOOD news.
The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).
I'm English and most of my fellow countrymen are quite happy for Scotland to be independent. Think it would do both countries a lot of good to be honest.
I worked in Glasgow for a while and found everyone perfectly pleasant, whenever a Scot works in England though they seem to get all chippy and resentful for some reason.
Think maybe you're confusing the English with the much smaller bunch of Londoners who dominate our media and other elites. Speaking as a Northerner who's worked in London I can guarantee that they are just as patronising to us as they probably are to you Scots.
I wouldn't normally respond to such nonsense, but it irks me that someone else might read this and not know the truth:
1) Alex Salmond was democratically elected by the people of Scotland. How's that Cameron working out for you?
2) HBOS is made up of Bank of Scotland (in Scotland, strangely), and Halifax Building Society (almost all in England). BoS was very profitable, one of the last great retail banks. Halifax on the other hand was massively in debt, toxic nasty debt from overextending mortgages to anyone and everyone. This is why HBOS was bought "outright" by the Lloyds Group (under HM Govt. orders), instead of breaking it up into BoS and Halifax - it would have become clear that the debt was an English one and not a Scottish one, despite the Scottish name. If Scotland had been independent, under international law, we'd have had to account for the assets in Scotland, and their debts; this would have been very little, since Halifax was never that popular in Scotland, and BoS was running a profit. England would have been saddled with massive debts.
3) RBS, bit different, since it was still a Scottish bank. However, again, most of the debt was another part of the company, in this case the Dutch investment group ABN Amro. A lot of the debt was serviced by the Netherlands government, but yah, RBS would have had to be bailed out by Scotland. Fair enough, we'd have the credit rating to support it if we were independent.
I don't mind the notion that Scotland should pay her way after independence, nor do I think we'd have a problem doing so. I do mind the idea that England somehow subsidises Scotland, given that even the somewhat-biased UK Govt. figures (google "GERS 2011") show that Scotland pays more tax per capita than the English do, and on top of that has been running a surplus for several years. Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, and yet pays 9.4% of the tax, and is responsible for over 10% of the UK's GDP. And all of that is NOT including all the North Sea oil & gas revenues that will become Scotland's post independence. Nor does it account for any taxes raised in Scotland by companies registered in England (such as most banks, shops etc.) , a good example being Tesco's which brings in staggering quantities of money in Scotland, but pays it's tax from London, and so it not accounted for in Scottish figures. Post-independence that will obviously change, so really, when the economic figures are in, Scotland will be a lot richer and better off without having to subsidise London.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
I live about 30 miles south of the border, and strongly believe that we should become part of Scotland until we can re-establish the kingdom of Northumbria with a king at Bamburgh. We will then demand compensation from the english for all the coal and iron they stole and take the Australian Government to court for copyright infringement by the Sydney bridge which is a blatent copy of our bridge over the Tyne.
nec sorte nec fato
We can't... that's why we have a half finished air craft carrier and no aircraft to put on it, at least not for the next decade.
But, hey, we've still got nuclear submarines so we can claim to be sitting at the top table.
...is actually starting to become a dirty word. Gotta love it. So say we all!
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
More bulbs doesn't necessarily mean more light. In fact, targeted lighting can use less energy, because you don't need to shove 150w into the main light in order to illuminate every corner well enough, if those have their own lights (that are only turned on when needed).
Dilbert RSS feed
Speaking as an Englishman living in Wales, I don't want to see independence for Scotland or Wales, I want to see independence for London. Without London, I think the rest of the UK would get along a lot better...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They didn't fake it, and people didn't lie, but in at least one of the examples in Gasland, the methane have been shown to be naturally occuring, a fact that they somehow forgot to mention in the film. What probably happened is that people have had flammable water for years and years, but have never tested it. How often do you test your water for flammability? After talk started about fracking and water pollution, people in fracking areas have started testing it. They can see that they have flammable water now, and they have never seen it before, what is the natural conclusion? It must be caused by fracking.
Burning water is a red herring in the fracking debate. I understand why people like it, it is very effective demonstration, but problems with fracking is unlikely to show up as flammable water. To keep bringing it up will make it harder to discuss the problems which fracking is likely to cause, and harder to fight the practises which causes these problems.