'Well'... the US have done it...

Yesterday, I was suitably unenthused by the declaration that the PM was “going all in” on fracking. His visit to a fracking site around the Lincolnshire town of Gainsborough followed the announcement that French oil giant Total was investing £30 million in two exploratory wells in Lincolnshire. The “going all in” apparently entails financial ‘incentives’ (widely being described as bare-faced bribes) to the tune of allowing local councils who permit fracking to retain 100% of the business rates from the shale development, as well as receiving 1% of the revenues from the respective company. Even if the area is seen as unviable, if the council allows exploration, they will receive £100,000 from the drilling company (Pincher, 2014).

Cameron claims that encouraging fracking could create 74,000 jobs (a figure seemingly plucked from nowhere considering that current explorations are minimal and the industry is just starting out), and could bring in £3 billion in investment and improve energy infrastructure in the country (Johnstone, 2014). And yet, Cameron is claiming his climate commitments remain intact. Well I say they are looking worse for wear. There are some more understandable arguments, such as if shale gas replaced the 23% share that coal contributes to our energy mix, then this would decrease carbon emissions for the 23% share, by 50% (Gross, 2013). However, I feel the likelihood of this either being regulated for or occurring through market forces, is slim due to the decreasing price of US coal.

The process of fracking:

Essentially, once the well is dug (approximately 1-2 miles deep depending on the geology), a solution of water, sand and chemicals – namely acids to dissolve the minerals, gelling agents to suspend the sand, and other substances to aid fracturing of the rock (Gross, 2013), is forced down the well to release the gas.

The perceived dangers:

The (thankfully) widespread opposition to fracking in the UK is based on a few key aspects of perceived effects on the environment and humans. These are mainly: 

• The risk of earthquakes and tremors
• Risk of pollution to groundwater and downstream
• Effect of the wells on the landscape

Earthquakes have featured very prominently in the UK media following the early Cuadrilla earthquakes in Lancashire registering at 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale, not long after the drilling commenced (Gross, 2013). The main problem with the risk of earthquakes is that insufficient research has been conducted in specific areas to ascertain whether this will be an ever-present risk.

Regarding the risk of pollution, this is also dependent on location-specific factors such as geology, however the numerous stories (and now even films) shower the US media with ideas about the effects of pollution, and even when taken with the necessary pinch of salt, do indicate a relatively widespread issue. The groundwater pollution is caused when the boreholes have cracks and the fracking solution reaches an aquifer. This can have ecological effects and effects for domestic water supply – hence the pictures/videos of people seemingly setting their tap water alight in the US due to the hydrogen gas concentration. Environmental effects come in two main categories; huge water demands that fracking bring (i.e. 750,000 – 1.5 million cubic meters per frack (BeebeeJaun, 2013)) and the water pollution which occurs through the wastewater disposal.

The landscape is a key concern, especially in sensitive areas such as around the Lake District where fracking is being explored already. The exploration and possible exploitation of shale gas will exclusively occur in rural regions where the communities are more concerned about their local environment overall.

The US excuse:

The US have done well from it, with a 75% increase in natural gas production between 2004 – 2011; mainly due to the exploitation of shale gas on a massive scale, in some areas of Texas there are up to 12 wells per km² (Beebeejaun, 2013)! Their energy prices have dropped – leading to the EU importing huge amounts of their coal (very climate conscious… cough). However there are rather a few differences between the US and the UK; population density, known shale gas reserves, and primarily – land area.

Recent announcements:

The encouragement of shale gas exploration and exploitation is seen as premature, as Bamberger and Oswald believe that a complete ban on fracking is required before a full and comprehensive evaluation of the risks and possible resources present in the UK. This is related to the fact that it has been speculated that French company Total have only invested in the UK because France have banned fracking completely, the Netherlands have a temporary ban until more research is conducted (Revell, 2014) and Germany are strongly opposed to it. In regards to the financial incentives for fracking, Sir Cockell (chair of the Local Government Association) responded to the 1% of company revenues to be given back to local councils as a ‘token’, and he asserts this should be increased to 5-10% to be in line with global standards, and this money should be put directly into a community fund (Vaughan, 2014).

Personally, I believe that although gas is a better alternative to coal, this argument is too flawed to be relied upon, as there is no guarantee that it would be coal trade which suffers and not renewables. The point that gas could be used as the transition fuel to a renewable system was made at least 20 years ago, and therefore exploiting another (harder to access and less efficient) form of gas should not be used as an addition to this excuse. The three risks outlined above, although serious if fracking becomes prominent, are secondary to the issue of the delayed movement to a primarily renewable system, and in a similar fashion to my previous post on geoengineering, is distracting from the development and investment in win-win renewable technology.