It’s simply not tenable for the UK to promote shale gas, particularly given the rising international concern over methane leakage. And all for a fuel that’s hard to justify in a future low-carbon economy, requiring carbon capture technology (which has not yet been demonstrated at scale) and deeper emissions reductions elsewhere to compensate for methane leakage from fracking wells.ĭiplomatically, with the UK hosting COP26 this year, fossil fuels are a no-go area for the UK Government – as demonstrated by the outcry over proposed coal mining at the Woodhouse Colliery. It would require investment in fossil fuel infrastructure at the time when that system will be winding down – possibly leaving stranded assets behind. Strategically, shale just doesn’t make sense in the transition to net zero. The Climate Change Committee wrote the UK Government recommending the continuation of the moratorium, observing that any longer-term role for shale is economically risky – its high costs make even less sense as the UK moves away from gas. Just this year, we were reminded that the risks of fracking haven’t changed. With the arguments stacked against fracking, reconsidering shale isn’t worthwhile – and, with such strong public opposition, could lead to the loss of votes. Compared to the States, these issues are amplified by the UK’s higher population density – as noted by Kwasi Kwarteng in recent days – and landowners have less involvement because our mineral laws give the Government the rights over gas exploration. There are doubts over the industry’s ability to manage health risks like water pollution, anger over disruptive industrial activity near to homes, and fears about the earthquakes caused by fracking. This strong level of opposition has been maintained. At that point, the Government decided that shale gas was not worth supporting and announced a moratorium on fracking. Polling by YouGov showed that fracking for shale gas was the most unpopular source of electricity generation, with 65% seeing is as unfavourable – in stark contrast to support for renewables (see chart). Whichever way you cut it, shale would keep the UK locked into the volatile international gas market.įracking was remarkably unpopular with the public, with the UK Government’s own surveys in 2019 finding that opposition to fracking outnumbered support by four to one. What’s more, UK shale wouldn’t meet our demand, so we’d still be importing gas – again at the market rate. Prices would be affected by overseas demand (and political interference) – we’d have to pay the market rate, otherwise the gas would be exported to those who were willing to pay. And yet shale supporters are reheating their argument that UK production would somehow isolate us from international prices – whereas the reality is that UK shale would still be part of the international market.
Overall, it was concluded that UK shale gas would have little impact on energy prices, consumer bills or GDP. These challenges would make UK shale three times the price of US shale and twice the price of imported LNG. Unlike in the States, the UK’s shale reserves are split into smaller pockets that would be harder to access – and of those reserves that could be accessible, three quarters would have to be left alone to avoid disrupting homes and infrastructure. But the fact is that the UK couldn’t simply jump straight to a gas boom that took the States 20years of preparation, let along overcome major challenges specific to this side of the pond.įracking in the UK is thwarted by geology. Supporters of fracking are once again pointing to the US, where the practice exploded across vast swathes of countryside, cutting US gas prices and making that country a net exporter of gas – the UK, they claim, could do the same.
0 kommentar(er)
