Article Post

Opportunity (Almost) Lost

Pipes Inside a Power Plant

The shale revolution has driven down US energy bills, freed up household income and made North American businesses more competitive. Has dithering Europe already missed the boat?

You'd have to have been hiding in a cave with a candle not to have heard something about The Shale Revolution these past 12 months. One headline calls it the future of affordable energy. Another says fracking is the embodiment of environmental evil. Battalions of activists, lobbyists and journalists have mobilised for and against.

That's because shale gas is turning out be as disruptive as the internet, but with potentially game-changing benefits for European governments, businesses, society at large and anyone with a household utility bill to pay. Look at what's happened in North America in just three short years: natural gas prices have plummeted, coal has been pushed aside as an electricity source, a rejuvenated manufacturing sector is humming along on the back of low energy costs, and now abundant natural gas looks to make the continent a net exporter of fuel in the next 5-6 years.

If that happens, Europe could find itself awash in cheap LNG imports - dampening enthusiasm for investments in any homegrown shale production industry. But we won't have to wait that long to see the risks in letting America extend its lead. With so much gas available, coal has been discarded for power generation and European utility companies have been eagerly buying it up - even building new coal plants to take advantage of the low price. Perversely given the EU's environmental commitments, the result has been an uptick in our carbon emissions and shrinking emissions in the US.

On almost every level Europe is missing the boat on shale. The question is, can we ever catch up?

What we're missing

With the invention of reliable hydraulic fracturing technologies in the 1990s, unconventional gas and light, tight oil has utterly transformed America's energy outlook. By 2010, shale production in the US had soared to ten billion cubic feet per day with the potential to quadruple by 2040. Low estimates of the amount of shale gas technically recoverable in Europe suggest at least 2.3 trillion cubic metres (tcm) compared with 13 tcm in the US. A smaller opportunity, but the potential impact on European jobs and manufacturing is more than tantalising:

  • ·         Looking at the US experience for guidance, shale has brought a drastic reduction in gas prices and a corresponding reduction in electricity and production costs in manufacturing , making the sector more competitive

  • ·         Estimates from the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers suggest a domestic shale production industry could generate upwards of one million jobs in Europe, many of them in areas hard hit by the recession and Eurozone woes

  • ·         With our current reliance on Russian gas, Europeans will also take note of shale's geopolitical dimension. The US is reducing its imports of Middle East oil, making political relationships there less driven by energy dependency

Shale gas could also deliver a social dividend by helping mitigate the worst effects of fuel poverty - an issue of such magnitude that the Church of England felt it necessary to intervene in the shale debate recently, warning opponents against taking a narrow view and advancing the possibility that Shale production could minimise fuel poverty.

The environmental arguments in favour of shale should be self-evident. Shifting to a higher proportion of gas use in energy production will help curb our carbon dioxide emissions. Limiting gas production or consumption, on the other hand, pushes us inevitably back to coal.

With the amount of coal-generated electricity rising in some European countries at an annualised rate of 50 percent, we are already seeing a `new golden age of coal'. The result? Despite decades of political and industrial effort to move the renewables agenda forward, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons coal will account for 25-30 percent of the global energy mix in 25 years' time - exactly what it was 25 years ago.

What's holding us back

There are a number of factors holding back domestic shale production here. Some are political, some are related to the structure and operational realities of the European energy industry, and some are down to simple geology. Politics and green activism, however, may be the biggest hurdles to overcome if any of shale's North American benefits are going to be replicated here.

Environmental worries around fracking have so dominated European debate that very little discussion about economic prospects has been able to surface. Public outcry in the Netherlands and Germany has made those governments hesitant to exploit their potential reserves, and France has banned fracking altogether. The overall response to shale from European industry, meanwhile, has been muted or at best ambiguous. We are only now seeing signs that it is waking up.

Has the penny finally dropped?

The UK government has just, belatedly, launched a licensing regime for shale exploration alongside tax incentives for local councils to speed up approvals. Total is the first major to jump behind that opportunity and there have been other positive signs, notably Chevron's deal with Ukraine in November. A good start - but more needs to be done.

Shale gas has the potential to reduce European energy prices, boost employment, create investment opportunities and move us off the current path to more and more coal consumption. If we don't act quickly, arguably with the EU in the lead, the prospect of cheap US fuel exports threatens to smother the development of any nascent European shale industry.

As an energy sector stakeholder I have a four-point proposal

  • 1.       Unleash shale gas exploration - now. The rest of Western Europe needs to follow the UK's lead in directly supporting shale exploration to quantify the scale of opportunity in each country

  • 2.       Reassure European voters that shale gas points us in a greener direction, even if it isn't a perfect solution in and of itself. An industry consensus on codes of conduct for exploration such as those outlined in the IEA's `Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas' would go a long way to seeding public confidence

  • 3.       Counter junk science. The environmental concerns about fracking have been overblown and the industry must make a concerted communications effort to debunk myths where they occur with hard facts and evidence

  • 4.       To energy companies, utility companies, energy-intensive businesses and derivatives traders, the next 5 years will be a chaotic time in the market so understanding and managing the risks of shale investments in your portfolios needs to be a top priority

Whether or not European shale gas production could ever replicate what's happened in North America is simply unknown. Exploration needs to happen now if we're going to find out.

Discussions

The CEO of Exxon has stated that shale has failed to deliver outside the U.S. He has also said that there are some shale deposits in the U.S. that cannot be exploited. I see no reason why that situation should continue, but based on present evidence, the talk about a shale REVOLUTION is mostly nonsense or a fantasy, I suggest that the author of this article should examine the article by Davis Swan.

As for the claim that the so-called Reliance on Russian gas is dangerous for the European economy, I won't even waste a comment other than to say that if Mr Ferrigno is really concerned about the European economy, he should advise Angela Merkel to stop playing the fool where nuclear energy is concerned. As the author probably knows, Poland and France were at one time identified as countries with large shale deposits, but it appears that Poland is no longer of interest to the major energy companies, although admittedly the failure of France to exploit shale deposites in that country - if they can be exploited - is a mystery. It could be though that French engineers and managers Think that it won't pay to invest in shale gas, or maybe they Think that it is best for their firms and France if that gas stays in the ground for a while.

Speaking of junk science - or better junk economics - the work of the International Energy Agency hardly comes up to that level.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Well, as the folks in the Ukraine are finding out, being reliant on Russia is the road to oblivion. Perhaps the witless Germans should turn their reactors back on and stop using Russian natural gas. While they are at it, stop wasting so much money on renewable energy and build nuclear and coal plants which will always provide power when you need it. Might want to invest in shale gas exploration as well.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
It is hard to to work up much sympathy for Europeans concerning energy. They have been electrified since forever while bitching more than anyone else about pollution and CO2. Blessed with great hydro sources and coal they have been using in quality for a couple hundred years they want the rest of the world to shape up and go green. They have a relatively stable population so they do not have the burden of providing energy for more every year – chasing their tail like so many countries attempt to do.

Why so many have gone anti nuclear dumbfounds me. Does it make Germans feel noble to buy hydro from Scandinavia and nuclear energy from France? Didn't they just a few years ago find the idea of using more coal to be crazy and outright immoral?.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Don, a few years ago Merkel said that Germany had to have more nuclear. But then she got a look at a poll which said that that kind of thinking was for the birds, and so she Went green. Industry people in her country are screaming and shouting, but of course she ignores them. That makes sense, because unlike Marlene Dietrich and Romy Schneider, her invitation from Holliwood has not arrived.

Frankly, I dont expect too much from people like her and our president. Both have been promoted beyond their capacity...their capacity to add and subtract.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
You hit that one right out of the park! +10!

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
I'm puzzled twice-over. Seems Germans have expanded the role of the Chancellor to choosing how they are to make their electricity? And have polls become plebiscites in Germany? Can't Merkel be embarrassed? I get quite uneasy about immunity to embarrassment, an attribute seemingly endowed at birth to politicians. I am reminded of another properly elected Chancellor who managed to expand the role of the office. Only twelve years later one couldn't find anyone who ever voted for him.

I didn't know what a Romy Schneider is so I cheated. Near as I could learn she never did get an invitation to Hollywood. I did see a list as long as my arm of her French films. I could not testify that there is such a thing but I can testify to the Three Stooges.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Funny Don, but I was talking to a history major in the cafeteria of my college in Sydney, and he made it quite clear that Adolf was NOT elected, and I was a lesser person because I was unaware of that fact. As for Ms Schneider, she turned up outside the apartment house in which I was staying in Vienna, and stayed there long enough to smile at the hundreds of her fans who appeared. I was hoping that she had come to see me, but as usual I was disappointed.

Fred

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Hitler's becoming chancellor was neither a clear election nor simply an appointment. It was a “Plan.”

“Between 1929 and 1932, support for the Communist and Nazi parties increased. The less extreme parties were blamed for causing Germany's problems. As these parties had been unable to work together to solve country's problems, people became more afraid that the Communists may take over. The MODERATE parties turned to the Nazis to keep the Communists out. In the election of late 1932 the Nazis won 37 per cent of the vote, and became the largest single party in the Reichstag. In the hope of creating a stable government, the elderly President Hindenburg agreed to the plan” (From the NEN (UK) Educational Network.)

Sorry to have provoked an off-topic issue.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Don - you're right about Europeans. Being from Britain originally I can attest to the fact that burning coal by the megaton was how Britain became the military-industrial giant for several hundred years. The same with Germany. NOW they preach to everyone else that coal is bad.

Pure unadulterated hypocrisy. And as for Merkel saying you are " going green by using Russian natural gas, Swedish nuclear and hydroelectric and French nuclear is about as laughable as it gets.

If she wasn't a politician I'd swear that she was telling lies.

Malcolm

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.