The recent announcement by the Scottish Government on fracking was no surprise. No amount of evidence-based material would have countered entrenched public opinion. Opinions formed through exposure to very poor media reporting and scaremongering.
Before going further let me say that I’d rather keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to renewable and carbon free energy technologies.
So if the anti-fracking argument was based on ‘keep it in the ground’, I’d buy that. However, the methane produced by fracking need not be used as a fossil fuel; it could be reformed into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The hydrogen used for carbon free electricity production and the carbon monoxide used as a feedstock for the synthesis of numerous chemicals. That though would require a lot of joined up thinking.
Whilst some antagonist did use the ‘keep it the ground’ tenet many used the safety and environmental impacts of fracking as their reasoning for opposition. Of course the ‘keep it in the ground’ argument could not be used by the Scottish Government. If that was their basis then why provide support and funding for the Oil and Gas Technology Centre. So what was the basis for the Government position? They cited overwhelming public opposition, and if you read the views given to the public consultation they were correct. A populist decision, one politicians make to avoid civil protests and with an eye on remaining in government.
The Scottish Government funded an expert scientific panel to report on unconventional oil and gas. One of the main findings was –
“There are a number of technical challenges associated with unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, though it is the Expert Scientific Panel’s view that none of these are insurmountable. The technology exists to allow the safe extraction of such reserves, subject to robust regulation being in place”.
That seems pretty clear, so why did the Scottish Government largely ignore it? They knew no amount of evidence-based material would change public opinion. The ban was a good self-serving political decision.
Paul Wheelhouse was asked why he was happy to import fracked gas.
He answered that he was not responsible for the policies of other nations. To import gas requires a huge amount of energy for transcontinental shipment and pipeline transportation. The consequence of that energy requirement is additional carbon dioxide – a global issue.
If we produced our own gas we would lessen global carbon emissions but that seems to have been conveniently ignored.
It is just politics.
Tom Baxter is a senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen.
Recommended for you
Read the latest opinion pieces from our Energy Voice columnists
- Standardising specifications: a new approach
- OPINION: Victim’s son fears another Piper Alpha is ‘just around the corner’
- OPINION: Contractor lawyers in demand as firms reluctant to return to bloated workforces
- OPINION: Are Electric Vehicles changing BP’s business model?
- OPINION: Where helicopter safety is concerned, regulations matter