REVISED - Shale Gas in UK is Political Manoeuvring, Says Expert

Natural Gas Europe has the pleasure to present the viewpoint of an expert with little interest in shale gas in Europe. Being based in Australia, Tina Hunter provided us with an external perspective, highlighting the mistakes of David Cameron's government in relation to shale gas. The Director of the Centre for International Minerals and Energy Law made use of her legal and geological knowledge to question the relevance of shale gas in the United Kingdom. According to her, "it is political manoeuvring" and developments will not have a significant impact on energy security, price security or employment. Nonetheless, the Senior Lecturer at the University of Queensland also warned green groups, suggesting them to change their position and start speaking with the industry and politicians. "Shale gas is going to come. I think the government has the strength, the capacity," Hunter told us on the sidelines of a recent conference about fracking. 

You said that there are quite a few political problems in the United Kingdom in relation to shale gas.

Yes.

There are a few experts saying that developments are too slow, but your understanding is quite on the other end of the spectrum. Am I right?

I would be very much encouraging the British to go slowly. The pace is quite fine. In fact, they have to be aware of all the risks, and then they have to assess the risks, and then take decisions, rather than what we did in Queensland. We galloped down this path and then we went so far down this path we could not stop the horse.  There was no way to turn it back. There is a lot of money invested; there is pressure by companies on the government. I have been here for three months, from January to March, and I watch Cameron talking about it: “it is coming. We are going to do it and it is going to be very fast.” I think that is wrong. I think this pushing, and pushing, and pushing is what is driving the reaction from the public.

And what is the reason for this pushing?

I think it is this fake assumption that shale is going to create jobs and economic benefits that would then make the government look good for the next election. That is what I think drives them. I have seen it before. I have seen this in Queensland and let me tell you it is not going to happen. The skills that are required are going to come from other countries. To drill the well and to undertake this sort of activity is not for somebody who is unskilled. This is for highly technical people. And you are going to take them from the offshore industry here, and even then, they will not going to have the right competence. So you are going to get them from somewhere else. 

In a recent conference, you said that the shale gas industry lacks of big players that could have the necessary technology to explore for shale gas.

Yes.

Did the recent mergers and acquisitions in the British shale gas industry change your assessment?

I think there is going to be other big players coming in. We saw that Total is coming in, GDF Suez is coming in. You will get increasingly big players coming in. What the big companies do is to sit back and watch very closely what a few little players are doing. They see if it is commercially viable. Then eventually they buy. It is a very fine line. These little companies have got these licenses and they want to prove it up, and then they want to sell them for a fortune. So you have to be very aware of things might be exaggerated. They want to push through quickly to make money.

But are there any risks in the exploration phase?

Generally production is not an issue, because it is done very well. The exploration wells can be a problem. The biggest exploration wells, what we call appraisal wells, are the ones that can go horribly wrong if not done properly.

Would there be evidences of these mistakes? How would the public get to know of eventual mistakes?

The regulator needs to have extremely transparent systems, and so should the companies. Tell people what happens, what they do, what they don’t do, and how they are going to do it. By doing that, you then reassure the public. The more you hide things, the more the public is suspicious of you. And so, as a result, what the companies need to be doing is every time they do something different, publicize it. Put it on the webpage. Something to look at in the US is something called FracFocus. It is an information portal for everything is going on in fracking. I think that the UK should seriously think about setting one up.

But the difference between the US and the UK is that in the US green groups are open to a debate about shale gas, whereas British green groups don’t even want to consider the eventuality.

As I recently said to these groups, I think they have to rethink their position. Shale gas is going to come. I think the government has the strength, the capacity. The regulators have effectively the law on their side. But it should be handled a lot better. They need to get public support.

The summer is approaching. Don’t you think that protests are much more likely during the summer? Don’t you think there could be, at least to a certain extent, a lower degree of political endorsement from political parties that need votes?

I think that if the Conservative voters suddenly decide that it is not something they want in mass, then the Government might change its position. But the question the Government has to ask himself is: “Is the number of protests about fracking and shale gas to tip the scales of the possible benefits? In this sense, it is going to be a balancing act.

What’s your take on the possible advantages of shale gas? Do you see possible consequences? Putting the job creation aside, which you already ruled out, do you think shale gas would support energy security?

I don’t think it is going to make any difference. I think that what the UK needs to be doing is focusing on renewables, biogas. I think shale gas is going to bring so much grief and add very little to energy security. I heard a politician saying that they want to be less dependent on Norway because something could happen in their relationship with Norway. I though what a joke that was, because the last time the Norwegians invaded was a thousand years ago. Norway is in the perfect position to supply the UK with cheap gas. And it will come through pipelines. It is extremely good source of gas. You can use that gas as a transition fuel.

So, what is your general understanding of shale gas in the UK?

I think there is too much pin on this. In my humble opinion, as a geologist, I think the reserves are not going to be what they say they are. If you go back to the original Energy Information Administration’s assessment, which was I think 100 Tcf. The British Geological Survey got 1300 Tcf. In my country we have got only 300 Tcf and that is on the very bright side. And we have got a lot of shale and coal. I think it is a wrong assessment.

So, do you consider this just a political move?

Yes, I think it is political manoeuvring. The Government is using the possibility of shale gas to incentivize exploration process.

In this context, is the government doing enough to stimulate offshore explorations? 

That is a really good question. The final Wood Review came out in February. Offshore is something we should be looking much closer at. And that is about maximizing what energy we do get from the North Sea. There is a lot of oil and gas still there.

Editor's Note: (First version of this article contained an error. By mistake,  Ms. Hunter said that DONG Energy is investing in shale assets in the United Kingdom)

Sergio Matalucci