-
ONS report from 2015 shows we don't heavily rely on Russia for hydro carbons and not at all for gas
The likelihood of that changing much is unlikely, the Russia argument isn't really there, we do get a fair wedge of petrol from them though.
This, redacted, paper from 2014 by UK Gov gives estimates of potential supplies of gas, ranging from 1.1% of consumption to 89% of current consumption, so they didn't really know how much gas they really do have and even if their optimistic results are in place, they would need to drill 1100 wells a year (they also state this is highly unlikely).
This article here shows the effect of shale gas on the UK economy would be tiny.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918301764
In my opinion, the folk that will benefit the most are those that own, drill and frack these wells.
This is leaving out the potential ecological damage and the eyesore of thousands of wells having to be drilled to keep producing.
Bernhard-
Make no mistake, the only people that benefit from this is the likes of Cuadrilla.
What's the difference between this and a conspiracy?
-
ONS report from 2015 shows we don't heavily rely on Russia for hydro carbons and not at all for gas
I write about the energy markets for a living, you know.
a) 2015 is not 2018
b) we're talking about the future, anyway. There is very little incremental supply left in the North Sea - the Norwegians aren't expecting any significant gas capacity additions after Polarled comes on stream. So in the future we're going to have to rely increasingly on imports from further afield. Those are a) Russia and b) LNG. Where it will come from depends mostly on the relative price of supply.
c) Yes, they don't know how much shale potential there is until they actually try to produce some. You need to drill to understand the geology.
d) That study seems to focus on the highest end of the cost range rather than the lower end.
Howard
h2o
May have to. May not have to either. That’s part of the problem with the current state of the anti-fracking argument - it’s starting from the premise that everything will be the worst possible outcome imaginable.
Imports have to come from somewhere. The Norwegians can’t supply everything the UK needs, so we’re looking at Russian gas and LNG. Putting all our eggs in a Russian basket is risky geopolitically, and I don’t think the climate footprint of LNG is smaller than domestic fracking.