The British Geological Survey headquarters in Nottingham. The BGS is partly funded by the oil and gas industry.
The British Geological Survey plays a key role in UK government’s view of fracking. Yet the BGS’s annual report reveals the organisation is partly funded by companies involved in the hydraulic fracturing industry, including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, BG Group and Schlumberger.
The BGS’s close financial ties to industry raises questions about the impartiality of a widely-awaited BGS report commissioned by the UK government. This report will form the basis of any government decision to restart fracking in Lancashire. The government has previously commissioned the BGS to report on the UK’s Shale Gas potential, and the BGS also gave expert testimony to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change on the same subject.
The BGS sourced 29% of its revenue from ‘external projects’ in 2010/11 (see p38 of the BGS annual report). One of those project was the Edinburgh Anisotropy Project. The EAP website bears the logo of 23 oil and gas companies, most of which have interests in hydraulic fracturing. The industry uses anisotropy to model leaking gas wells.
The BGS annual report states: ‘The EAP has increased its international reach over the years so that it now counts almost every major oil company among its sponsors.’
The BGS is therefore both being paid by industry via EAP, and advising the government on that same industry.
This clear conflict of interest has not been noted by DECC nor the BGS itself; indeed it is a structural problem within the oil and gas sector that very few geologists are independent.
The BGS is a typical example. The advisor has a vested interest in promoting hydraulic fracturing – and has a direct route via which to influence government thinking.
Airth: Britain's first unconventional gas development?
http://millicentmedia.com/2012/03/07/british-geological-surveys-shale-gas-groundwater-study-to-omit-cuadrillas-fracking-sites/
British Geological Survey’s shale gas groundwater study to omit Cuadrilla’s fracking sites:
http://millicentmedia.com/2012/03/07/british-geological-surveys-shale-gas-groundwater-study-to-omit-cuadrillas-fracking-sites/
The harm that is associated with fcnkriag is NOT in the natural gas produced but in the dispruption of the environment from the use and particularly the disposal of the water used in fcnkriag. By taxing water use and disposal rather than gas production harm could be prevented while allowing the nearly full benefits of the production of natural gas. The “shale gale” is saving American gas buyers over $100 Billion per year. But neighbors HAVE been annoyed by the rumble of tractor -trailors hauling waste water and there is some chance of contamination of ground water supplies by pools of waste water awaiting disposal. Fracking is possible with less water. Fracking is also possible without using or disposing of water by using not water but jellied propance as the fcnkriag fluid. Over 1000 wells have been fracked in Canada using propane by Gasfrac.
Anne. PA has become the role model for what not to do.-Some good ivtiiaitnes on the local level but statewide, the balance of power has shifted over to the frackers and their political buddies who are making it easier and cheaper to drill in PA.-Also check out issues around radiation and bromides.-And tax loopholes.-If Texas likes fracking, have at it!
Pingback: Sussex MP: ‘don’t worry: be happy’ about fracking | gasdrillinginbalcombe
Pingback: Government fracking advisers are being paid by the fracking industry | ENERGY ROYD