Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson asks: Frack on or Frack off?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson asks: Frack on or Frack off?
August is an excellent time to stage a media-friendly protest. With little other regular news about, domestically at least, journalists will be more than happy to report protesters marching, banner-waving and – in the more militant – causing a nuisance, breaching the peace and being arrested. That the weather’s usually a bit more pleasant than in February doesn’t go amiss either.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I fear that we are in for a re-run of the anti-GM food lunacies which could delay things for years
Being more reliant on domestic energy resources must be a key goal and impact on everybody's prosperity.
It won't save us from our inevitable rendezvous with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
It may push the date back by a year or two...
I suppose the interesting question is whether the government could do something to change the incentives of protesters, and make breaking the law somehow self-defeating. For example, the government could offer to pay for security, of even start a fund to compensate people whose businesses were damaged by illegal activity, in ways they couldn't practically recover from the people responsible for it. Maybe somebody could set up a charity to do that kind of thing - presumably there are quite a few rich people out there who would be sympathetic to the plight of people trying to do things that protesters don't like.
I've been watching the #Balcombe hasthag and its a parallel tree huggy universe of an echo chamber.
A few factoids may be useful. The village has about 1750 residents, most of them are well heeled sorts who dislike incomers a lot. A very good friend had two Labradors called Monty and Rommel - that's quite a good pen pix of the place. There are a small number of local middle class greenies and concerned locals - about 30 turned up to the local church hall meeting.
McProtesters have swamped the place and so far Sussex Plod have spent £750 000 on their antics. And have drafted in officers from other forces to help keep things under control.
Cuadrilla have pulled back on the advice of Sussex police because 1000 McProtesters were due to turn up, play their bongos, pitch yurts and generally intimidate everyone else into agreeing with them.
I can understand why the police have done this - its better to strategically withdraw than end up having a fight with Swampy all over the telly. Leave it a few days and they'll have to go back to work or get bored or find another McProtest event to polish their agiprop credentials over.
I really dislike this sort of behaviour - its flying pickets masquerading as greenies, they don't live here they just flock like sheep to whatever is fashionable and wag their fingers at the rest of us. Like Dale Farm, I suspect the locals will be more narked with the protesters than the issue, if they aren't already.
PS. rcs1000 can confirm or deny this, but I wouldn't think British gas production would have much to do with keeping the lights on or keeping electricity bills down in Britain. If gas can be moved around the place reasonably cheaply, it's going to make a tiny dent in world electricity prices, not a big dent in British ones.
This mob revel in being 15yrs old revolutionaries on someone else's dime.
If I were Cuadrilla - I'd announce a load of shale sites and divide the flying pickets up = a battle fought on many fronts would exhaust them sooner than later.
"domestic hat production"
Is this a little known form of energy?
For anyone who missed it or is too sniffy to read it - two articles about shale gas.
One comparing it to Ayn Rand's Reardon's Metal and another pointing out the other side of the OMG EARTHQUAKES argument.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100231459/shale-gas-is-reardon-metal/
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-five-myths-about-fracking-(1).aspx
Assuming you aren't ideologically opposed to fracking just because well you are - there are very valid and well argued points in both. If you've already decided you know the answer, I assume you won't bother but rubbish it anyway.
"The total number of aquifers that have been found to be polluted by either fracking fluid or methane gas as a result of fracking in the United States is zero. Case after case has been alleged and found to be untrue. The Environmental Protection Agency closed its investigation at Dimock, in Pennsylvania, concluding there was no evidence of contamination; abandoned its claim that drilling in Parker County, Texas, had caused methane gas to come out of people’s taps; and withdrew its allegations of water contamination at Pavilion in Wyoming for lack of evidence.
Two recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that groundwater contamination from fracking is “ not physically plausible.”
Given that I have an incredibly low opinion of any peer-reviewed anything post Climategate, I discount them as well when they are confirmation biased in my favour. The disservice the UEA and their cronies did to peer review is enormous.
The reason it's very likely that the average joe will benefit is the consumer surplus - it's a sensible prediction that fracking will bring energy prices down, at least relative to the no-fracking counterfactual. There are other reasons to think fracking would make us better off: more domestic hydrocarbon production would be a shot in the arm to the balance of payments (funny how a few decades ago the BoP dominated headline news - dread to think what they'd make of ours now!), some average joes are going to be employed to frack, and more taxes are going to be paid than if this economic value were not to be extracted. But the taxes and the jobs and the boost to net exports aren't the main point - if the industry can add value to the economy then there's going to be a potentially sizeable economic surplus, and if there's no added-value then there's no incentive for them to frack.
The idea that fracking is going to, on net, suck up government subsidy seem unlikely to me. The reason companies are eager, is that with modern techniques and at current price expectations, it looks a profitable proposition. The government certainly pumps masses of direct and indirect subsidies around the economy, everything from renewable energy to industrial R&D to the banking sector. Some of that is wise, some of it appalling - but it's a value judgment which is which, and not one that all PBers will agree on! But the reason an austerity-era government is looking so favourably on fracking is precisely because they see it as a cash-cow and revenue-raiser (and in wider industrial policy and foreign trade contexts, a useful rebalancer) and not as a new pit to pour money down.
Two points. That exploiting millions or trillions of shale gas won't effect the price downwards seems highly implausible to me and it will also create jobs/generate tax revenues that allow for tax cuts in other areas. Here we're in what looks like agreement.
Additionally, we will be freed from importing so much natural gas, oil or nuclear from elsewhere. Energy security is a little appreciated factor. When I visited the Bacton gas terminal, their main worry was a terrorist attack - without it we'd have 20 days of gas for 50% of the whole country. We were having trouble during the last hard winter when we were a handful of days away. If were were held hostage by Russia via AN Other country - we'd be toast. Uncooked.
It's all well and good to say - It'll Never Happen, but it can and does.
And if we decide not to use the massive resources under our own feet - well other countries will, and have lower energy costs = making us less competitive.
There are so many blindingly obvious arguments for it and scaremongering on the other by so called progressives who aren't.
Whether prices actually rise or fall over time is a different issue, depending on other factors - off the top of my head, inflation and exchange rates, foreign energy demand (depends on their policies and also growth), changes in market structure (new pipes?) - but it's the comparison with the counterfactual that counts economically. Politically, I'm sure it's absolute rises or falls that matter more, and the counterfactual is invisible to the pound in your pocket!
Some eco-warriors appeal to squeezed-middle wallets that "opening up new hydrocarbon resources won't push down prices anyway", but that's disingenuous as they also argue "as we run out of hydrocarbons, prices will rise, so we should be using renewables instead even if they cost more now". You can't have it both ways, if only since new resources postpone that running-out; besides, the USA suggests an observable price fall is possible. On the other hand, eco-warriors claiming "fracking has potentially large negative externalities that impose a social cost which hasn't been priced in", are at least making a legitimate economic argument. Whether fracking does pose the environmental dangers they claim, and the companies deny, is a scientific question I'm not equipped to arbiter.
Given the long-run uncertainties, I wonder whether a Pigouvian solution (which in principle should best an outright ban in terms of welfare-maximisation) could even be constructed. Would like to hear the opinion of PBers who are better economically educated, is there some kind of "Pigouvian insurance" for potential, but currently undetermined, long-term non-pecuniary externalities? Clearly it'd be possible to apply a carbon tax at e.g. the level suggested in the Stern Review to deal with the climate change angle. It's the novel risks of fracking, seismic or otherwise, I'm curious about.
Anyhow this site is supposed to be about the political angle, which is where the answer probably lies to why the government wants to subsidize them. Fracking is a wedge issue that, used correctly, can be separate the environmentalist side of the left-wing coalition from people who are mainly worried about the cost of living.
The fiddly bit here is the nimby angle, but to talk about that we'd need to look at the specific constituencies where it might actually happen.
The shale gas explorers must pay the local residents £100 000 if they find a suitable site to explore and then 1% of the revenues from it =
That's quite a NIMBY sweetner.
" There were also large rewards on offer to communities which find themselves sitting on vast reserves. He said: “Companies have agreed to pay £100,000 to every community situated near an exploratory well – somewhere where they’re looking to see if shale gas exists.
“If shale gas is then extracted, one per cent of the revenue – perhaps as much as £10million - will go straight back to residents who live nearby. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10236354/You-must-accept-fracking-for-the-good-of-the-country-David-Cameron-tells-southerners.html
There is a particularly significant balance of trade issue with energy, but Ed is right (and I think OGH is wrong) about Ricardo's comparative advantage: if imported energy is cheaper, both we and the foreigners are better off if we trade their energy for something we're good at doing. (In fact the way the maths works, we don't even have to be better/cheaper than them at doing our export activity, so long as we're comparatively less bad at it than we are at extracting energy.)
Some countries have lots of readily available energy but find it geographically difficult to export it. Iceland famously exports energy "locked up" in smelted aluminium. But I think Edmund will enjoy this one: now Iceland exports energy as data...
Balcombe strongly opposes any actions which may be taken which involve civil trespass and/or illegal acts. And I further state this, if the No Dash for Gas group is coming here in the full knowledge that it intends to break the law then it should stay away. It is not wanted in Balcombe! It is duly uninvited.
Alison Stevenson
Chairman
Balcombe Parish Council
No one bothers to mention the first patent for FRACKING was U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) awarded in November 1866.
Yes you read that correctly. Col. Edward A.L. Roberts, veteran of The War Between the States (I am south of the Mason-Dixon Line) was the inventor.
In other words this technology with improvements along the way is over 150 years old.
This is a similar situation. If fracking is legal, then the forces of the state (i.e. the police) MUST be used to whatever degree necessary to allow it to continue, unimpeded by the Luddites, revolutionaries and hystericalists. If fracking is not safe, the law should be changed.
Labourites - look away now
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02646/BOB170813_2646232a.jpg
Not to worry Mr Herdson, they have friends in high places after all.
"The risk now is that this won’t be a six-day protest but that the militant ecology lobby will drag it on,"
Speaking of the militant ecology lobby... Since we wouldn't want an inept tory spinner trying to selectively quote and misrepresent the Parish Council chairman, now, would we? ;^ )
So some actual facts and polling might be useful though of course they can't compare to a ridiculous dog anecdote for sheer comedy value.
Personally I would round up all the protesters, separate the locals who have a genuine right to protest there and the "rent a protest"ers. In the latter case, every one claiming unemployment benefits should have them stopped because they are not looking for jobs. In addition many of them look as though they would benefit from a good bath!
For energy I would make an exception: (1) it's such a big item that it can create volatility in the balance of trade (2) given that it is essential for much of human activity you need security of supply - but relying on Russia as your alternative supply if the Gulf of Hormuz is closed is pretty risky.
In the US prices fell sharply because they have no easy way to export the gas (since Obama decided not to build the north-south pipeline), so it has crashed prices - although they are exporting other fossil fuels such as coal (I think) to the UK. The UK already has the Interconnector in place so (subject to capacity limits) there is the ability to generate additional income instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky
(and, by the way, the correct interpretation of "stewardship and dominion" allows for sensible exploitation of natural resources)
A small parochial exception, you might sniff. But self sufficiency is vital to survival here.
Edited for missing word
If it's a tactical move as Plato things then it has merit (although the PR is horrible). If it is more than that then it has the potential to be as bad as the Met's strategy on the first day of the London Riots
The point about anti-GM though is that it arose through public concern in the wake of things like the BSE crisis. If you don't address the issues and the public with clear information to assuage their fears then don't act shocked when that concern doesn't automatically disappear in the blink of an eye.
To apply it to this current situation it is blatantly obvious that what Caudrilla should be doing is making it a priority to win over the residents of places like Balcombe with public meetings and other initiatives to make certain that those residents are fully aware of what their operations will entail and what the possible short tern detrimental effects as well as what the larger benefits of them will be.
The poll of the Balacombe residents done by the Parish Council lays it all out for them.
Simple enough. You counteract NIMBYism by detailing precisely how your operations will proceed, laying out a timescale and the footprint of those operations while giving out unambiguous and correct information to address all the concerns.
Will it work on everyone? Unlikely, since trust is commodity that usually has to be earned through deeds and not just words. Yet you will win over more than enough if you are seen to be proceeding with all due care and respect to the local community, and most importantly, not lying to them.
Do that and the protests will lose steam and support where it matters. Fail to do so and the protests will snowball and will be adopted wherever local opposition is strong.
This is very different.
Physically preventing people from going about their lawful business is not legitimate protest. Blocking lorries isn't. Intimidating people isn't. This sort of behaviour escalated in the miner's strike into murdering people by dropping concrete slabs onto their cars. The hotheads need to be cooled down before this gets out of hand. And the best place to cool down is in a hospital bed after a baton charge.
Get on with it and clear them out.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/28/11250.full
Isotopic analysis excludes the possibility the gases were already there.
Hat-tip to Reddit yesterday:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1khbe3/study_finds_higher_methane_ethane_propane_levels/
Make it just enough wells for an assessment to be widely applicable and robust but don't ASAP them. Rushing now when the industry is in it's infancy could well cause far more problems down the line. I'm not saying delay it for untold years but the first instances of fracking being applied will be scrutinised and held up as the standard from now on. It's far better to get it right now than to do damage control for years afterward if it isn't.
There's been more than enough examples in other countries by now to use as a template for both the pitfalls and the correct way to do things. It's in the interest of companies like Cuadrilla to proceed with a view to making their operations sustainable and effective well into the future in as many places as is viable while of course getting it done in as timely a manner as is merited and feasible.
Thank you for news of the local scene and for bringing some common sense to the debate.
A company with which I am associated is working on many energy projects for clients including fracking.
Security of energy is a vital matter for the UK. Currently we get gas from the N Sea (UK, Dutch and Norwegian waters), Irish Sea and import liquified methane from Qatar. As the UK's supplies decline, we have to import, which means that we are at the mercy of the international energy market which is very much controlled by speculators. Only countries that are self-sufficient in energy resources are not domestically beholden to the international energy price. Currently, some of our imported gas is only released into the UK pipeline (by UK gas companies) if the price is right - i.e. high enough. An economic source of energy is required for UK industry to be globally competitive.
Methane (CH4) is the preferred gas and fuel as when one molecule is burned it produces one molecule of Carbon Dioxide and two molecules of water (assuming complete combustion). So this is a cleaner choice than coal and that is why there is in Europe a dash for gas and closing of coal powered power stations. However the focus on gas has left an excess of cheap coal that can be imported from USA, Russia etc.
(continued)
@rowandavies
Hmm so Tom Watson's now on the outside pissing in, eh? That's gonna be uncomfortable
Good thing Ed is swift and decisive. No more Labour Grandees quoted in disobliging articles today.
Oh, wait... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3845423.ece
The presence of evil is a problem for belief in the existence of a good God, from which theodicy emerges: the attempt to justify God in the face of evil. The Inconsistent Triad is a familiar conundrum in theology: how do you reconcile 1. belief in God's omnipotence with 2. belief in his omni-benevolence in the face of 3. the existence of evil and suffering? If God is all-powerful, yet chooses not to intervene or do something about suffering then he is perhaps not all-powerful after all. If he wants to intervene out of goodness yet cannot, then he is perhaps not all-powerful.
I'm not sure it's fair to suggest it is 'wankily anthropocentric' to raise the above. The problem of evil and suffering is an acute one. Nor is it just the scale of suffering: that would indeed be anthropocentric. It is the fact of it. This was brilliantly raised by Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov during the Grand Inquisitor scene where Ivan and Aloysha debate God's existence in the face of suffering.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/dostoevsky-a.pdf
Could write a lot more but I guess I'm weary of the topic having abandoned faith in the face of suffering and evil.
Hence this kind of hilarious stupidity. The inevitable response And of course extremely nervous tory backbenchers looking on in fear for their seats.
In the UK about 12% of our energy is produced by Renewables and much of this is subsidised by HMG. Fracking provides a good time-frame opportunity to develop more economically viable Renewable energy sources to produce the electricity that our future generations will require. Local sourcing will be important as the transmission energy loss does not look like being sourced in the near future. Also increase in energy efficiency is an important as new energy sources.
The UK does have another energy source that can be utilised quickly - that is the subterranean gasification of coal deposits that are either too deep to mine or are geologically uneconomic to mine. This would produce more complex hydrocarbon gases and liquids but these could be used as chemical building blocks if not used as a fuel.
Fracking technology and its associated risks are well known and the is a large known technology and prior art - so there is no need to develop new technology.
However, the misinformation and videos released by the ANTIs is technologically incorrect and the majority of energy exploited will be gas but not oil. However the UK does have over twenty onshore oil and gas wells operating happily and very quietly with a minute physical footprint and most people do not know where they are.
Water and sand used in fracking are natural materials, as are the vast majority of fluidic chemicals used and all those chemicals are biodegradeable.
Perhaps we should have a two-price energy tariff in the UK, green energy including fracking and subterranean gasification and nuclear and other energy including coal-fired energy and imported energy. The public will certainly vote with their pocket.
All refineries and gas storage areas must have flaring facility for use in an emergency only where a technical fault could imperil the site, its workers and local inhabitants. However the majority of frackable sources found to date in the UK are purely gas.
'Scottish Labour in dark over Falkirk investigation report'
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/scottish-labour-in-dark-over-falkirk-investigation-report.21604581
The answer is free will in respect of evil. The fundamental nature of our relationship with God is that he has set us free to find our own way in life. Most, if not all, will get it wrong and a very small proportion of those will do unspeakable things.
In terms of natural suffering, it reflects the way that the earth is designed. Earthquakes are a good example - they are caused by stresses that build up due to the movements of plates. I don't know why plates move, but am sure that there is a very good reason (probably to do with the molten core)! So earthquakes come down to a trade off: is the positive caused by plates moving better than the negative of earthquakes?
Do you have its author and publisher please.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hedge-Hogs-Traders-Streets-Disaster/dp/1400068398/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376721709&sr=1-1&keywords=hedge+hogs
Although Herdson is on the (small) sane wing of the Tory party, even he just cannot help himself sometimes. Even good writers need wise sub-editors, but sub-editing of PB articles seems to be close to non existent. Mind you, the mainstream press are hardly any better than blogs in that respect.
Environmentalism and greenery is not anti-science. With my Chemical Engineering hat on, about one-third of our projects are Environmental Impact Assessments and what-if scenarios.
The biggest dinosaur is the Environment Agency as they do not know what they are doing and do not understand Nature. so yesterday, a main trunk road was flooded as they had forbidden the farmers to do their annual dredge of the river, yet they allow the water company to continue to mix street rain water with the sewage which all overflows and puts raw sewage onto the local beaches where children are paddling.
Suffering is a good reason not to believe in God, or at least the Christian God. The only logic of it is the notion of a creator who either destroys himself in the process of creation or who is not loving or all-powerful, or both.
But I'll bow out of belief in either. I respectfully hand back the ticket thanks. He doesn't exist. We're nothing but atoms and chance, and we're everything but atoms and chance.
As in the US, a combination of a tax regime policy and production cost can deliver an energy price that makes local industry globally competitive again.. That is why you find an aluminium plant in the Middle East. The big question is will the HMG of the day have the vision to do this and not waste money on useless bureaucracy.
- A bloody confrontation on the streets of Cairo is a damaging development, and could be a precursor of worse to come http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21583718-bloody-confrontation-streets-cairo-damaging-development-and-could-be
We holidayed in Egypt a few years ago (Hurghada and Cairo). I'm glad we did, as I am starting to wonder if we will ever be able to go back. Who wants to holiday in a new Somalia?
The prime minister says shale gas will reduce energy bills but his own energy department says that will only happen if we can exploit lots of gas. It admits we don't know whether that will happen or not. It's true that fracking will improve energy security, if it's productive. It will potentially generate healthy tax revenues. But some academics say the PM's promise of 70,000 jobs looks exaggerated.
Fears of earthquakes are overblown. Fracking shakes the ground but not normally hard enough to notice. It does use copious fresh water, and produce a lot of chemically contaminated waste water. There are risks of water pollution - but experience in the US suggests these can be minimised by tight rules and good practice.
There's still uncertainty about how much methane is released into the air by the fracking process. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas so this is controversial. So is the fact that shale gas is a fossil fuel, being sought with government enthusiasm at a time when the UK has legally binding targets to wean the economy off fossil fuels. The chancellor has failed to reassure environmentalists that he intends the UK to stick to its Climate Change Act.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23730308
He is a twitter stalker so to get beyond 140 characters might be difficult.
What I'm not seeing is the mechanism by which domestic production makes you immune to the international market prices of this internationally-traded commodity, unless the government is going to start blowing up pipelines and terminals.
Why would a benevolent God allow free will? Our time on earth is but a blink of an eye in eternity. Surely a loving God would not allow any of us to risk eternal peace, love, tranquility for sins committed over such a comparatively tiny amount of time. If God does exist, can't we only conclude that He is malign. Of course, as a classically English agnostic, I am not saying this is the case, I am merely posing the question.
At Paddy Power you can get 6/5 for Labour to win Brighton Pavilion.
Has Caroline Lucas MP really been such a dud that she is in serious danger of losing her seat at the first defence?
Whether this Balcombe business will have an impact (and if so, which way) will be interesting to see, with it just down the A23 from Brighton.
Without free will, you are a puppet.
That's simply a case of product differentiation. They've convinced themselves that organic food tastes/is better and healthier. It also costs a lot more, so it is a signalling device for wealth and privilege.
Essentially they are paying to (a) show they are rich and (b) feel morally superior.
I'd be tempted to include an energy / energy-futures market equivalent of the financial markets snarl-up that occurred towards the start of the Crash, where banks weren't willing to lend to each other except at a significant premium. I don't really know enough about how those markets work to be too confident about asserting it as a second example. (Just because something hasn't happened, it doesn't mean it won't or can't though).
Greens pushing up energy prices, helping the poor become poorer. Bunch of out of touch trustafaians. Freck em.
Must have been a coincidence that Greens did worse in Bristol Council elections in wards further away from the University. Oh, and good old red trousers George Ferguson is wondering if he should speak out more against fracking.
If Egyptian crisis develops in ways which turn Middle East upside down, and halts flows of oil to The West, opposing fracking isn't going to look too smart if energy insecurity increases.
Fundamentally free will because a question of whether you believe or not. Faith is then (or should be) reflected in action.
As for the judging process, I have no idea how it works. I struggle with the idea that God will condemn the (relatively) innocent - the unbaptised babes etc. That's why the Catholics came up with concepts like Limbo - but those seem overly-complex for me. I'd rather believe in a merciful God, do my best to live according to his will (although I will no doubt fail), and then trust to my chances.
1) There are two different things going on here, a discussion about the merits of fracking and a challenge to public order. These should not be confused. The challenge to public order should be seen off, not caved into.
2) I'm relaxed about fracking in principle, but I don't see the huge hurry to get the frackable oil and gas out of the ground right now. It's been down there rather a long time and I doubt it's going anywhere in the next few years. Nor do I anticipate that oil and gas prices are going to crash any time soon either. If it is a valuable resource, it will keep.
3) When the oil and gas is used up, what next?
I haven't seen the damage caused by fracking, but from the reports I've read it appears to be relatively controlled / limited. It's certainly nothing like open cast mining.
Although, as a great example of horrific attitudes try this:
Destruction of the estate
In April 1946, on the orders of Manny Shinwell (the then Labour Party's Minister of Fuel and Power) a "column of lorries and heavy plant machinery" arrived at Wentworth. The objective was the mining of a large part of the estate close to the house for coal. This was an area where the prolific Barnsley seam was within 100 feet (30 m) of the surface and the area between the house and the Rockingham Mausoleum became the largest open cast mining site in Britain at that time: 132,000 tons of coal were removed solely from the gardens.[23] Ostensibly the coal was desperately needed in Britain's austere post-war economy to fuel the railways, but the decision has been, and is, widely seen as useful cover for an act of class-war spite against the coal-owning aristocracy. ...
Shinwell, intent on the destruction of the Fitzwilliams and "the privileged rich", decreed that the mining would continue to the back door of Wentworth, the family's East Front. What followed saw the mining of 99 acres (400,000 m2) of lawns and woods, the renowned formal gardens and the show-piece pink shale driveway (a by-product of the family's collieries). Ancient trees were uprooted and the debris of earth and rubble was piled 50 ft (15 m) high in front of the family's living quarters.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Woodhouse