This post is for the benefit of constituents of North East Somerset, England, and is on the known views on environment climate change and shale gas of Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP. Further, it tries to make sense of the volumes of gas reserves that he has told constituents exist in the UK.
Our
Member of Parliament the Hon Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg is famous for his
informative and often amusing historical references and, on occasion,
for using extraordinarily long words in his Parliamentary appearances.
He often speaks in Parliamentary debates and has an excellent voting
record. He has a broad range of interests especially focusing on
economic and fiscal issues, the European Union and of course history. He
can also be a bit of a rebel.
As
our MP he represents us in Parliament on the full spectrum of
government business, no easy task, but we don’t necessarily know what he
thinks on a specific issue unless it is brought to our attention in the
local or the national media or through a circular from his office. Mr
R-M has recently published articles in the local press, including the
Chew Valley Gazette, concerning energy policy. These days energy policy
cannot be discussed without also considering the environment. So, now
that the topic has come up what are Mr Rees-Mogg’s views on energy and
environment, including global climate change?
Mr Rees-Mogg has raised my concerns about the GWPF and its possible influence on MPs and government policy with the DECC. The Minister of State, the Rt Hon Gregory Barker (Conservative), has kindly replied and reassured me that government policy related to climate change is informed by science. But what does Mr Rees-Mogg think?
The Timsbury Environment Group (TEG) held a meeting with Mr Rees-Mogg in September to discover his views on recent developments in climate change. The TEG made it clear that their report would be made available to the wider community and it can be found at http://tinyurl.com/reg-jrm-meeting . Amongst other things the report states that Mr Rees-Mogg “finds attractive” the opinions of the GWPF and that he favours the development of shale gas and is prepared to see the 2008 Climate Change Act changed to allow increased carbon emissions. In conclusion the “TEG found alarming the opinions on climate change of our MP Jacob Rees-Mogg”.
What else do we know about our MP's views on environment, climate change and energy? In May this year Mr RM gave a lecture at the the Centre for Policy Studies entitled Is Disraeli Right: ‘A sound conservative government... Tory men and Whig measures’? in which he lays out a vision of “full-blooded Toryism” including a business-based growth strategy. Who would disagree with a business-based growth strategy, but on what basis? Mr R-M says in his lecture:
“Environmental
and recycling targets need to be looked at to see if they serve any
useful economic purpose or are merely part of green orthodoxy. This
leads on to cheap energy which will be essential if we are to compete
globally. Hydraulic fracturing may be part of the solution but carbon
emission targets will not be. Even if the greens are right Britain will
make very little difference on her own and I would rather my
constituents were warm and prosperous rather than cold and impoverished
as we are overtaken by emerging markets who understandably put people
before polar bears.”
He also says to his audience that the “battle of ideas has to be won”. That sounds like a challenge.
Our economy and wellbeing cannot be divorced from our environment which provides us with resources and ecosystem services. Even the financial services of the City rely on it, otherwise where would the traders be without food to eat and fresh water to drink? Environmental regulations and the protection of habitats are not there for direct economic purpose nor, so called, green orthodoxy, they are there to protect the environment and the ecosystems on which we are entirely reliant. In a lecture to the Royal Society in 1988 Margaret Thatcher (a scientist) said of environmental protection:
“Even
though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money
well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the
health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other. Stable
prosperity can be achieved throughout the world provided the environment
is nurtured and safeguarded”.
Tal, A, 2006 Despite being an island we do not live in isolation and we share finite global resources. Our inter-connectivity and the need for environmental controls to protect our natural wealth are starkly highlighted by the recent discovery of Ash dieback (chalara fraxinea), in English forests and there is a serious risk that our Ash tree population will be decimated. What are the economic costs of not adequately protecting our forests against the loss of 80 million Ash trees? The costs are not just economic but also social, environmental and ecological.
Mr Rees-Mogg has recently told us of the potential benefits of hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately he used the same tactics as the GWPF by quoting an unattributable Reuters report, cherry picking the information that suited his argument and then inflated the figures by an order of magnitude.
He tells us (http://tinyurl.com/rm-frack-somerset-g) that the Reuters report said “the UK has 60 years of onshore reserves and 300 years offshore”.
What Reuters actually says is that UK onshore resources are 200 tcf and offshore resources are 1,000 tcf, but adds that only 10-20% of the gas may be recoverable. Reuters actually used the term 'reserve' whereas they should have used the term 'resource'. The resource is the total amount of gas in the ground, whereas the reserve is the amount of gas which could be recovered - i.e. the 10-20%.
Mr Rees-Mogg ignores the fact that only a portion of the gas resource can be recovered and assumes useable reserves of 200 tcf and 1,000 tcf respectively. Using a national consumption factor of 3.5 tcf per annum Mr Rees-Mogg then extrapolates:
200 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 57 year onshore supply
1,000 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 286 year offshore supply
Mr Rees-Mogg rounds these figures up to a 60 years onshore supply and a 300 year offshore supply of gas. A veritable Bonanza of shale gas!
Instead of taking the whole resource and dividing by 3.5 Mr Rees-Mogg should have taken just 10-20% of gas which might actually be recovered.
Lower 10% estimate:
20 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 5.7 year onshore supply
100 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 28.6 year offshore supply
Upper 20% estimate:
40 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 11.4 year onshore supply
200 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 57 year offshore supply
So that makes for a national supply of between 34.3 years and 68.4 years.
HOWEVER, where to the 200 tcf and 1,000 tcf figures come from? Reuters do not say where the figure of 200 came from, but it could be either the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) or from Caudrilla Resources which both use a figure of 200 tcf. The EIA estimate is from a general global assessment and the Caudrialla estimate is based on fracking tests in Lancashire (not yet verified). The 1,000 tcf seems to derive from an off the cuff answer to a question to BGS during evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee in February 2011. When asked how much bigger the offshore resource is compared to the onshore resource the BGS representative said “say five to ten, something like that”. BUT in this guestimate he was referring to five to ten times the BGS resource figure of 5.3 tcf, not the Caudrilla estimate which was not published until September 2011 or the EIA estimate.
So, if we take the British Geological Survey’s estimate of onshore recoverable shale gas, which is 5.3 tcf then we get the estimate:
5.3 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 1.5 year onshore supply
26.5 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 7.6 year offshore supply @ 10% recovery
53 tcf / 3.5 tcf = 15 year offshore supply @ 20% recovery
Then we get a combined onshore and offshore estimate of between 9.1 years and 16.5 years supply - not 300 years !
Estimates of Shale Gas Resources and Reserves in trillions of cubic feet (tcf)
J.R-M
|
Reuters
|
US EIA
|
British Geological Survey
|
Caudrilla Resources
| |
| Onshore resource |
200
|
200
|
-
|
200
| |
| Onshore reserve |
200
|
20 - 40
|
20
|
5.3
|
20 - 40
|
| Offshore resource |
1000
|
-
|
26.5 - 53
|
-
| |
| Offshore reserve |
1,000
|
100 - 200
|
-
|
-
| |
| Onshore + offshore |
1,200
|
120 - 240
|
31.8 - 58.3
| ||
| Supply in years |
342
|
34 - 69
|
9 - 16
|
There is certainly much uncertainty about shale gas resources in the UK, and better estimates will emerge, but the estimate of a 360 year national supply has been cooked up by someone and promulgated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and now Mr Rees-Mogg.
In recent written evidence to the Department of Energy and Climate Change the right leaning think tank the Policy Exchange (“David Cameron’s favourite think tank”) states “commentators who argue with great certainty that shale gas is the answer to future energy needs fail to recognise uncertainty about the future and neglect the importance of developing zero carbon technologies to meet long term emissions reduction goals”, but in his lecture JRM has said that carbon emission targets are not part of the solution.
In evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee DECC states that, “It is difficult to see how offshore shale gas might become a real prospect within the next few decades” adding “At the present time there is no known offshore exploration activity for unconventional gas anywhere in the world”. The Reuters report to which Mr Rees-Mogg refers states that, “for the offshore industry to become viable, you'd need vastly higher energy costs”.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change has estimated that the investment necessary to exploit shale gas would be between £19 billion and £32 billion over the next twenty years and would probably impact on investments in renewable energy. They also estimate that this investment would return less energy pound for pound than renewables and would compromise the UK’s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Rather than using a confused Reuters report and then making even more confused and outlandish claims, Mr Rees-Mogg should have gone to information provided to him by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology and the Standard Note on Shale gas and fracking (SN/SC/6073) (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06073) published in July this year and which gives a balanced overview, or to the estimates of the Department for Energy and Climate Change or the British Geological Survey. Why did he go to the Reuters report rather than official British estimates? Why is he so confident in his conviction when he not seem to understand the basic principles? Why are his fracking articles not on his web site? Who is advising him so badly?
Has Mr Rees-Mogg joined Lord Lawson up the climate change gum tree? I believe that Mr Rees-Mogg is going to have to work a lot harder to win the battle of ideas. The least that we should expect is that this debate is based on credible information from transparent sources and within a scientific framework. In that context we can all express our diverse opinions and come to an informed position. This is actually what the Department of Energy and Climate Change is doing but unfortunately our MP has chosen to take another path.
I am a constituent who wants to be both “warm and prosperous” and have a sustainable global economy based on a sustainable global environment - including habitats for polar bears. Why would we strive for less?
All of my information sources are given below so that the reader can see where I have selected information to support my argument and so that you can make up your own mind on whether Mr Rees-Mogg's views on shale gas resources are credible.
The Rees-Mogg Reuters Report
http://tinyurl.com/rm-frack-source
Rees-Mogg article in Somerset Guardian, Benefits fracking could bring are surely worth investigating
http://tinyurl.com/rm-frack-somerset-g
Rees-Mogg article in MNRJournal Fracking good for the economy – less fuel poverty
http://tinyurl.com/rm-frack-mnrj
Rees-Mogg article in Chew Valley Gazette
http://www.chewvalleygazette.co.uk, page 20 of the October 2012 edition. Click on the current digital and then use the archive tab.
Tim Richards letter to Chew Valley Gazette
www.chewvalleygazette.co.uk/news.cfm?id=37599&searchword=shale
Jacob Rees-Mogg Lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies
http://tinyurl.com/jrm-lecture
Parliamentary Note on Shale Gas and Fracking
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06073
Minister of State Chris Huhne’s letter to the GWPF
http://tinyurl.com/c-huhne-gwpf-letter
ECCC Written Evidence
http://tinyurl.com/eccc-shale-gas-2012-13
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
http://tinyurl.com/tyndall-shalegas
Imperial College evidence on the economics of wind power
http://tinyurl.com/ic-cep-economics-of-wind
David Attenborough: force of nature
http://tinyurl.com/da-gumtree
Tal A., Ed, 2006, Speaking of Earth - Environmental speeches that moved the world, Rutgers University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment