Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My supspicion is that the good bergers of these here parts have made up their mind on this....I'm still open, but certainly suspicious of the 'tone' of the debate thus far...good/challenging article on this in the Spectator a few weeks back which isn't avaialble in full on-line but could get this follow up.



Energy Debate


You nmade up your mind yet? I don't think I have.


Edited with link this time

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/
Share on other sites

Dunno if I've made up my mind about shale but I have about Fraser Nelson a while back ;-)


presumably you would also have read this


which talks about teh investment problems


involved


So I dunno. if I was to accept Nelson's view of things I'd be a fool to say no to such a find. But he sounds a bit simplistic to me - like cigarette manafacturers in the '50s

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-500929
Share on other sites

???? - fraccing hell. I don't know whether to love you or hate you for bringing this topic to the edf, I could never resist posting.


Haven't read your link yet but I will do later*. There's always been a need to find alternative 'unconventional' energy resources, shale gases were what helped the US all those years ago when it was claimed that 'conventional' methods of extraction were runnng out.


Shale gas, coal-bed methane, deep-sea and onshore drilling, I'm all in favour of.


Needless to say the 'Friends of the Stone-Age' will complain but they'll be at the start of the queue when the lights go out. I don't think much of Chris Huhn'rs 'vision' for the energy ndusrty in this country but then again what do I have in common with a multi-millionaire and his 9 'homes' and fast cars.


(Oops sorry didn't mean to rant avout dear old Chris there).


* takes aaaages to open on my inferior blackberry.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-500931
Share on other sites

Yup - interesting SJ, didn't think you'd be postin g investment bank reports :)) I liked this cooment below,


don't think anyone ever thought shale gas would have such a big effect in the UK as it's had in the US, and that bank report is hardly news.


Nevertheless, shale gas will have a big impact here. Opposition from environmentalists won't be much of a problem the way opinion and energy bills are going.


This article is like a mirror image of the ones the Guardian's environment section does about such things as electric cars and wind power.


Just as in those cases any speculative and hopeful opinions/facts and figures are used to talk up the topic, in this case we see a rather pathetic and desperate attempt to talk one down. Ideologically driven people do seem to see things in terms of black and white, good and evil.


Could have been me if it had mentioned 'liberals' ;-)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-500934
Share on other sites

I've done the calculation just to gauge the size of the gas reserves: 5.6 trillion (5.6 x 10^12) cubic metres of gas at one atmosphere would occupy a cube approx. 1,775.8 metres per side (i.e. 1.77 cubic kilometres).


That is a lot of gas - it's a bit like squeezing sh!t from a rocking horse!


ETA: I meant to say '(i.e. 1.77 kilometres cubed)'. The figures should be 17,758 m and 17.75 Km - see later posts below.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-500943
Share on other sites

Interesting article. Yes agree with SJ that Nelson's argument is too simplistic, there are drawbacks with every energy source that often don't get mentioned dependng on where one's interests lie.


HAL am I being thick I don't understand how you got your calculation (sssh don't tell Mick Mac) do you work for Cuadrilla by any chance? ;)


Quids sorry for predictable ranting about Chris Huhne and going off-topic.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-500989
Share on other sites

It's a bit odd that one of the author's key reasons for exploiting shale is 'because it annoys... the greens'.


Not the kind of comment that creates much faith in his priorities.


The biggest challenge with fossil fuels is that it passes the price of energy onto the next generation. If this chap makes decisions on policy based on the fleeting thrill of annoying other people I don't have much faith in his ability to consider the future.


Having said that I can see that renewables are unlikely to deliver enough of our needs in the short term, and that the anti-nuclear freaks will do whatever they can to scupper that approach - so exploitation of national shale gas reserves is probably critical to medium term energy security.


What I'd realy prefer would be legislation that took household expenditure away from the 'empty' value of property and financial markets, and increased the percentage going into energy. More cash in the market will drive greater investment and quicker alternatives.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-501016
Share on other sites

HAL - if we're going to bandy numbers around let's get them right for frac's sake...


5.6 TRN cubic metres (trusting your source) would be a cube with a side of dimension 17.758Km, i.e. 17,758m. So that's 5600 cubic Km.


And even if you hadn't dropped the order of magnitude, your far less impressive cube of side 1758m would be a more impressive 5.6 cubic km not 1.75 cubic km.


That's if I've done my sums right.


Still fecking big though which I think was your point, presumably equivalent to squeezing shit from 3200 rocking horses.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-501138
Share on other sites

I must have clicked on one of the links in one or other of the original articles cited above. I cannot recall which one now. This article confirms the 5.6 trillion cubic metre figure: Cuadrilla claims game change in UK shale gas reserves


It looks like the simple task of typing eleven zeros defeated me. I thought my figure was too good to be true - yours suggests it probably is a colossal pile of horseshit. Google reveals quite a few concerns about the credibility of Cuadrilla's reserve estimates.


ETA: Just discovered that the cube root calculator I used only accepts 10 digit inputs, hence the dropped order of magnitude :(

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-501139
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure why you say it has to all be on a large scale. The government were looking at micro-generation a couple of years ago and there is evidence that it's efficiency is increased a lot when you don't have to transmit electricity down cables from a huge central power-plant.


Problem with micro-generation is that big corporations would have difficulty controlling it and creaming off a profit, as there would be more self-sufficiency of energy supplies, so it got shelved as a government backed option by Labour.


Not sure if the ConDems would have the balls to try to pick it up again.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-506963
Share on other sites

OK, investment, employment, energy, and safety arguments aside, what about the UK's undertaking to reduce its CO2 emissions? I.e. how do we reconcile utilising - what I understand to be - yet another high carbon fossil fuel with the UK Government's own commitments on climate change?
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-507044
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A less rosy analysis of the shale gas business


"In order to access Wall Street capital, [shale gas] producers have needed to demonstrate that they are being successful in exercising a strategy for aggressive wealth creation. That means aggressively buying acreage and drilling wells. Exercising a successful strategy often creates a vicious cycle ? more acreage and wells equals increased production and depressed prices. This cycle will continue as long as the music (Wall Street's money) continues to flow. Once that stops, we will see how many producers can find a chair in the room. In the meantime, the fun continues!"

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-508960
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's not quite as simple as that, though. The world is gradually exhausting supplies of easy-to-extract fossil fuels, so greater financial investment and higher energy inputs - usually oil - are needed to extract and process newer and more-difficult-to-extract sources of fuels.


If you could make an honest calculation as to shale gas's EROEI - energy returned on energy invested - the picture might not look as rosy as the industry PRs suggest. More expensive fuel needed for extraction and processing, combined with a chronic squeeze on finance, could mean you'll have to wait forever to get at all that gas.


The article I flagged up highlights the current financial side of the problem - it looks suspiciously like a bubble, which utterly obscures shale gas's long-term potential as a significant source of energy.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-509834
Share on other sites

The other worry about the 'honesty' of EROEI calculations is that they only tend to cover the expenditure from the ground to the end user.


They never include the costs of clearing up the world in 20 year's time.


Until this is clear and included on your electricity bill, the population will fail to grasp the importance of the situation.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20576-shale-gas/#findComment-509859
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...