Oil discovery near Gatwick airport 'significant'

By John Moylan

Industry correspondent, BBC News

• 3 hours ago 9 April 2015
 
• From the sectionBusiness

UK Oil & Gas believes its exploratory well at Horse Hill, Surrey, shows great promise

There could be up to 100 billion barrels of oil onshore beneath the South of England, says exploration firm UK Oil & Gas Investments (UKOG).

Last year, the firm drilled a well at Horse Hill, near Gatwick airport, and analysis of that well suggests the local area could hold 158 million barrels of oil per square mile.

But only a fraction of the 100 billion total would be recovered, UKOG admits.

The North Sea has produced about 45 billion barrels in 40 years.

"We think we've found a very significant discovery here, probably the largest [onshore in the UK] in the last 30 years, and we think it has national significance," Stephen Sanderson, UKOG's chief executive told the BBC.

UKOG says that the majority of the oil lies within the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge formation at a depth of between 2,500ft (762m) and 3,000ft (914m).

It describes this as a "world class potential resource" and that the well has the "potential for significant daily oil production".

Compared with similar geology in the US and West Siberia, it estimates that 3% to 15% of the oil could be recovered.

Underground riches

Oil has been produced onshore in the South of England for decades. There are currently around a dozen oil production sites across the Weald, a region spanning Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire.

Last year, a report for the government by the British Geological Survey estimated that the region may have shale oil resources in the range of 2.2-to-8.5 billion barrels, with a central estimate of 4.4 billion barrels of oil.

UKOG says that it drilled the deepest well in the region in the last 30 years and that the results "comprehensively change the understanding of the area's potential oil resources".

"Based on what we've found here, we're looking at between 50 and 100 billion barrels of oil in place in the ground," says Mr Sanderson.

"We believe we can recover between 5% and 15% of the oil in the ground, which by 2030 could mean that we produce 10%-to-30% of the UK's oil demand from within the Weald area."

'Significant'

Work currently under way at Imperial College also suggests that there may be more oil in the region than previously thought.

Professor Alastair Fraser has used some of the most sophisticated equipment in the world, based at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, to analyse rock samples.

His study of a third of the Weald came up with a resource of 13 billion barrels.

"So if I scaled that up, we are coming up to numbers of 40 billion barrels," he told the BBC.

"Now that's getting significant. That's a resource. That's what's there in the ground. We've still got to get it out."

Fracking unnecessary

Most experts believe fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, will be needed to get commercial quantities of oil from the region.

Concerns over fracking led to large-scale protests when Cuadrilla drilled at Balcombe, West Sussex, in 2013.

But UKOG has consistently stated that it is not intending to use fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into rocks at high pressure to liberate the oil and gas trapped within.

It says that the oil at Horse Hill is held in rocks that are naturally fractured, which "gives strong encouragement that these reservoirs can be successfully produced using conventional horizontal drilling and completion techniques".

The company says further drilling and well testing will be needed to prove these initial results.

Reasons why the Green Party should not be allowed on TV debates

Mark Steel in The Independent

If the Green Party isn’t allowed into the TV election debates, there should be a compromise, such as its MP, Caroline Lucas, being allowed to present an episode of Top Gear.

She could zip through the Lake District, saying: “But while it HANDLES like a DREAM, the new Alfa Romeo 2.3 litre XL Deluxe has just one problem. It’s an UNBELIEVABLY inefficient way to use energy compared to a reasonably priced re-nationalised rail network.”

Or the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, could be offered a different slot, such as commentating on an international rugby match. “The New Zealand pack is absolutely immense,” she could say, adding: “But even if it rucked across Sussex for two months it wouldn’t endanger natural resources as much as fracking.”

The party might have to try this, because the debates proposed don’t include the Greens at all, despite some polls showing it ahead of the Liberal Democrats. The BBC explained this was because, “We take into account electoral results from past elections”, in which case there must be an argument for including the Whigs, which remained high in the polls up to 1850.

Its leader could promise to reduce the deficit by colonising Africa, before becoming involved in a heated discussion about immigration with a Saxon warlord, who had been invited as he was part of a coalition government throughout much of the 10th century.

The Liberal Democrats have agreed the Green Party shouldn’t be allowed to take part, although it came ahead of the Lib Dems in the European elections and many recent polls. Maybe party members feel there should be a different set of rules for who’s invited, depending on the number of letters in a party’s name. So the debate on Channel 4 should only include the Liberal Democrats and the Reclassify the Brontosaurus as a Type of Diplodocus Party.

You can understand the Liberal Democrats feeling jittery about the TV election debates. Because in the last ones the party leader persuaded many people to vote for him, by confirming his pledge to abolish tuition fees. But in all the stress of a live debate, he got the words abolish and treble mixed up.

And he harangued the Conservatives for planning to put up VAT to 20 per cent, which the party angrily denied. But happily a few weeks later they’d sorted out this disagreement, by both putting it up to 20 per cent together. It’s a heart-warming tale of friendship overcoming silly squabbles that should be made into a romcom with Clegg played by Jennifer Aniston.

The problem now is no sane person can believe anything Nick Clegg promises, pledges or vows again. So there’s no point in him being there at all, as he’s like the bloke in the pub who tells ridiculous stories no one listens to. Dimbleby can ask whether he’d renew Trident, and he could reply: “I know Ronnie O’Sullivan. I always beat him at snooker, only the Government doesn’t let me in the tournaments ‘cos I’ve been shagging Michele Obama.”

Despite this, no one would suggest Nick Clegg shouldn’t be allowed in the TV debates. But it might be best if he was given a separate slot, like the act that comes on half way through the Super Bowl. He can dance to his latest apology, maybe in a provocative dress, and that way he doesn’t make such a fool of himself but the honour of the democratic process is preserved.  

Another reason given for excluding the Greens is that once you have five people in a debate, it becomes too unmanageable. And you can see how it might become difficult for the viewer to even remember who was who. When there are just four white men between 40 and 50 in suits and ties, it’s easy to tell everyone apart. But the Green Party leader is an Australian woman, and if you add her in, people watching at home would get her mixed up with Nigel Farage, or become confused and think they were watching an old episode of Neighbours.

There’s another reason why the Greens could spoil the evening. If the debates are just between the four leaders, there will be a soothing pattern to the discussion. For example, on immigration each leader in turn will say: “I deny we’ll let in more immigrants and that swe like immigrants and accuse all of you of liking immigrants, and you say you hate immigrants but we really hate immigrants and we’ll ban immigrants from eating biscuits until they’ve been here three years, and won’t let them into doctors’ surgeries unless they drink a tin of paint for the amusement of other patients.”

So if someone answers by suggesting immigration isn’t the main problem, it will ruin the whole event, like if someone turned up for a game of cards and insisted on playing tag-team wrestling instead.

You can understand why the three old parties are worried about letting in anyone from outside, as they seem honestly to believe they’re the main, proper, real parties and everyone else is still “others”. Their most persuasive argument against voting for anyone else is “they can’t win”, or “don’t all vote for them, they’re unelectable”.

The answer could be to allow the five leaders to take part in the debates, but allow each one to nominate a programme the others have to appear in, starting with David Cameron on Made in Chelsea, spending the whole show saying “Sorry, do I know you?” as he pretended not to know all his old mates

Why even atheists should be praying for Pope Francis

Francis could replace Obama as the pin-up on every liberal and leftist wall. He is now the world's clearest voice for change

• 
• • Jonathan Freedland
  • The Guardian, Friday 15 November 2013 19.59 GMT

'On Thursday, Pope Francis visited the Italian president, arriving in a blue Ford Focus, with not a blaring siren to be heard.' Photograph: Gregorio Borgia/AP

That Obama poster on the wall, promising hope and change, is looking a little faded now. The disappointments, whether over drone warfare or a botched rollout of healthcare reform, have left the world's liberals and progressives searching for a new pin-up to take the US president's place. As it happens, there's an obvious candidate: the head of an organisation those same liberals and progressives have long regarded as sexist, homophobic and, thanks to a series of child abuse scandals, chillingly cruel. The obvious new hero of the left is the pope.

Only installed in March, Pope Francis has already become a phenomenon. His is the most talked-about name on the internet in 2013, ranking ahead of "Obamacare" and "NSA". In fourth place comes Francis's Twitter handle, @Pontifex. In Italy, Francesco has fast become the most popular name for new baby boys. Rome reports a surge in tourist numbers, while church attendance is said to be up – both trends attributed to "the Francis effect".

His popularity is not hard to fathom. The stories of his personal modesty have become the stuff of instant legend. He carries his own suitcase. He refused the grandeur of the papal palace, preferring to live in a simple hostel. When presented with the traditional red shoes of the pontiff, he declined; instead he telephoned his 81-year-old cobbler in Buenos Aires and asked him to repair his old ones. On Thursday, Francis visited the Italian president – arriving in a blue Ford Focus, with not a blaring siren to be heard.

Some will dismiss these acts as mere gestures, even publicity stunts. But they convey a powerful message, one of almost elemental egalitarianism. He is in the business of scraping away the trappings, the edifice of Vatican wealth accreted over centuries, and returning the church to its core purpose, one Jesus himself might have recognised. He says he wants to preside over "a poor church, for the poor". It's not the institution that counts, it's the mission.

All this would warm the heart of even the most fervent atheist, except Francis has gone much further. It seems he wants to do more than simply stroke the brow of the weak. He is taking on the system that has made them weak and keeps them that way.

"My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost," he tweeted in May. A day earlier he denounced as "slave labour" the conditions endured by Bangladeshi workers killed in a building collapse. In September he said that God wanted men and women to be at the heart of the world and yet we live in a global economic order that worships "an idol called money".

There is no denying the radicalism of this message, a frontal and sustained attack on what he calls "unbridled capitalism", with its "throwaway" attitude to everything from unwanted food to unwanted old people. His enemies have certainly not missed it. If a man is to be judged by his opponents, note that this week Sarah Palin denounced him as "kind of liberal" while the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs has lamented that this pope lacks the "sophisticated" approach to such matters of his predecessors. Meanwhile, an Italian prosecutor has warned that Francis's campaign against corruption could put him in the crosshairs of that country's second most powerful institution: the mafia.

As if this weren't enough to have Francis's 76-year-old face on the walls of the world's student bedrooms, he also seems set to lead a church campaign on the environment. He was photographed this week with anti-fracking activists, while his biographer, Paul Vallely, has revealed that the pope has made contact with Leonardo Boff, an eco-theologian previously shunned by Rome and sentenced to "obsequious silence" by the office formerly known as the "Inquisition". An encyclical on care for the planet is said to be on the way.

Many on the left will say that's all very welcome, but meaningless until the pope puts his own house in order. But here, too, the signs are encouraging. Or, more accurately, stunning. Recently, Francis told an interviewer the church had become "obsessed" with abortion, gay marriage and contraception. He no longer wanted the Catholic hierarchy to be preoccupied with "small-minded rules". Talking to reporters on a flight – an occurrence remarkable in itself – he said: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" His latest move is to send the world's Catholics a questionnaire, seeking their attitude to those vexed questions of modern life. It's bound to reveal a flock whose practices are, shall we say, at variance with Catholic teaching. In politics, you'd say Francis was preparing the ground for reform.

Witness his reaction to a letter – sent to "His Holiness Francis, Vatican City" – from a single woman, pregnant by a married man who had since abandoned her. To her astonishment, the pope telephoned her directly and told her that if, as she feared, priests refused to baptise her baby, he would perform the ceremony himself. (Telephoning individuals who write to him is a Francis habit.) Now contrast that with the past Catholic approach to such "fallen women", dramatised so powerfully in the current film Philomena. He is replacing brutality with empathy.

Of course, he is not perfect. His record in Argentina during the era of dictatorship and "dirty war" is far from clean. "He started off as a strict authoritarian, reactionary figure," says Vallely. But, aged 50, Francis underwent a spiritual crisis from which, says his biographer, he emerged utterly transformed. He ditched the trappings of high church office, went into the slums and got his hands dirty.

Now inside the Vatican, he faces a different challenge – to face down the conservatives of the curia and lock in his reforms, so that they cannot be undone once he's gone. Given the guile of those courtiers, that's quite a task: he'll need all the support he can get.

Some will say the world's leftists and liberals shouldn't hanker for a pin-up, that the urge is infantile and bound to end in disappointment. But the need is human and hardly confined to the left: think of the Reagan and Thatcher posters that still adorn the metaphorical walls of conservatives, three decades on. The pope may have no army, no battalions or divisions, but he has a pulpit – and right now he is using it to be the world's loudest and clearest voice against the status quo. You don't have to be a believer to believe in that.

Time to get cracking on fracking

S A Aiyer

After years of consideration, the government has come out with a disappointing shale gas policy. The public sector companies, ONGC and Oil India, will be allowed to drill for shale oil and gas in blocks they already have, but fresh auctions will be conducted for all other shale deposits. Private sector companies will not be allowed to exploit shale formations in their existing blocks. This means delay and unwarranted red tape. There is little reason to have separate auctions for conventional and non-conventional oil and gas.

Shale gas and oil have changed the face of the US. Huge increases in production have taken the US close to self-sufficiency in oil, and created a big gas surplus. By 2020, the US may get all its energy needs from its own fields and those of Mexico and Canada, eliminating the need for oil from the Middle East or Latin America. India’s prospects are much poorer. Yet preliminary data suggest that India has 63 trillion cu. ft of shale gas, 20 times as much as in Reliance’s offshore field. Additional prospecting could raise reserves considerably.

One good feature: the new policy mandates auctions based on simple production sharing between the explorer and government. The current cost-plus system has led to endless disputes in Reliance’s case. This new policy will apply to conventional as well as non-conventional deposits.

The question remains, why treat shale gas as different from conventional natural gas?

Gas and oil have been formed by the decay under great pressure and heat of marine life trapped in sands millions of years ago. Conventional oil and gas are produced by drilling into rock formations that are porous (lots of holes in the rock) and permeable (the holes are interconnected, letting the oil/gas to flow out under its own pressure). Limestone and sandstone are rocks with good flow rates. But other rock formations can be “tight”, having low porosity and permeability, in which oil does not flow easily.

This is true of shale and some other rock formations. These formations have long been known to contain enormous deposits, but extracting them was earlier not economically viable. Then a new technology, fracking, was devised in the 1990s. It used horizontal drilling and highpressure water with sand to crack open tight formations. This improved the flow enough to make drilling viable.

Now, many oil and gas deposits lie in multiple layers of different rocks. Thick sandstone and limestone formations may be interspersed with shale layers. The oil and gas lie trapped in all the layers, but conventionally were extracted only from the easy-flowing ones. Now they can be extracted from the tight layers too.

Does it make sense to decree that an explorer can touch only conventional strata and not tight layers, which should be auctioned to a separate company? Is it logical to have two companies drilling in the same block, one in the limestone strata and another in the shale? Apart from the duplication in cost and effort, it could lead to endless disputes and litigation. It could jeopardize safe field development too.

The US makes no distinctions. An explorer strikes deals with landowners, and can extract any gas or oil from any sort of rock. After all, nobody knows in advance whether oil or gas will be discovered, and if so in what sort of rock.

Exploration policy in India should similarly have no distinctions in exploration policy. However, fracking will need separate environmental clearance, because it poses special challenges.

Fracking needs very large quantities of water, mixed with chemicals, for blasting open tight formations. Waste water after fracking could contain toxic chemicals, and so must not be dumped.

To begin with, fracking in India can be limited to areas with abundant water. Only deep aquifers should be tapped for fracking, avoiding shallow aquifers used for irrigation or drinking water. Maybe sea water can be used in coastal locations.

Second, waste water after fracking must be recycled for use in new wells, not dumped. This will not only check toxic hazards but reduce the water needed for additional wells. Only certified safe chemicals should be used for fracking.

If surplus fracked water is pumped underground for disposal, it can cause small tremors (misleadingly reported as “earthquakes” by activists). This can be managed by gradual, deep disposal.

Activists will undoubtedly ask the courts to ban fracking, even though not a single case of contamination has been established after two decades in the US. The government should get an advance ruling on this from the Supreme Court, clarifying conditions under which fracking can take place. This may take a few years, so we need to start forthwith.