Posted on 06/03/2015 1:58:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There will be no US-style shale gas revolution in Europe, the president of the International Gas Union (IGU) has told the BBC.
"You cannot duplicate [the US experience] in Europe," said Jerome Ferrier. "Politicians are hesitating to accept shale development."
Abundant shale gas in the US has helped domestic energy prices fall.
As a result some European governments, not least the UK, are keen to develop their own shale resources.
Mr Ferrier's comments come a day after a number of major energy firms called for a working price of carbon.
Carbon pricing
The IGU president, talking to the BBC at the World Gas Conference in Paris (WGC), said there was resistance to shale development in the UK and Poland, while there was "no way" it would take place in France.
Other countries, including Germany, Romania and Bulgaria, have placed moratoriums on fracking.
He added that it was "a pity" not to explore the possibility of shale development, but said "the future of gas does not depend on shale gas - there is enough conventional gas [to meet demand] for more than a century"(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Private ownership of mineral resources is a big factor in the US success.
>>He added that it was “a pity” not to explore the possibility of shale development, but said “the future of gas does not depend on shale gas - there is enough conventional gas [to meet demand] for more than a century”
That would certainly explain why Western Europe has been so dependent on the Russians for natural gas supplies. Oh, wait, no it wouldn’t. It would tend to make me think his statement is a bald-faced lie.
The left (in this case the euro trash left) would rather freeze in the dark as the inhale their own smug farts knowing they are saving the planet for the cockroach survivors.
> there is enough conventional gas [to meet demand] for more than a century”
Sure, if they want to rely on Russia.
Private property was really the aim of the Constitution. The presumption that voting rights would be tied to property and wealth wasn’t to create a plutocracy, but to prevent a kleptocracy. A broad business and entrepreneurial middle-class would prevent that. Sadly, we got slavery, a civil war and then the 17th Amend and the rest was downhill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.