This is a re-post from Elements, a website that I contribute to on a regular basis. This post is an opinion piece on the fracking debate written by Rachel Stubbins and myself.
Image courtesy of Jeremy Buckingham
Last week the Government lifted its ban on hydraulic fracturing commonly known as ‘fracking’ – which came into force last year after reports of seismic activity in Lancashire. With exploratory drilling set to commence and shale gas back on the agenda, environmentalists, ministers and industry leaders are increasingly at odds with each other. Elements writers Katherine Portilla and Rachael Stubbins give their opinions on the fracking debate.
An unsustainable energy source and an environmental threat — Katherine Portilla gives the argument against shale gas
Fracking is a threat to our environment that is undermining our move to a low-carbon economy. It calls for big investments with no guarantee of how much gas it will actually generate for our energy needs.
The process is linked to a number of environmental impacts and involves dense rock being blasted apart to release microscopic bubbles of trapped methane, what we know as natural gas. A fracking site needs up to eight drilled wells per square mile to collect this gas. Each of these wells requires planning permission and hefty funding.
Environmental threat
In the United States, fracking has already been tied to groundwater contamination, methane leaks and is criticised for its use of toxic chemicals in the drilling technology. In the UK, where it’s a relatively new practice, regulation of shale gas harvest is still in the development stage. Even with good regulation the risks of water supply contamination could continue to haunt us.
Management of the environmental risks is weak, and this is clear from last year’s seismic activity in northwest England. Three exploratory fracking wells were closed after two minor earthquakes. Although the quakes didn’t cause any real damage, they shook the ground enough for people to notice.Cuadrilla Resources, the company responsible for the shale operations, found that these tremors were probably caused by fracking. They proposed to start monitoring seismic activity to avoid future quakes at fracking sites.
Unsustainable energy source
Fracking will do little in the effort to cut emissions and tackle climate change. Environmentalists say it is counterproductive in the move to a low-carbon economy and that it risks deflecting the UK’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Chris Shearlock, Sustainable Development Manager at the Co-operative Group, says that the UK should rather concentrate on renewable technologies such as wind power, which offer a sustainable energy future and more stable energy prices.
There are estimates of some 6 trillion cubic metres of shale gas in the UK, that’s enough for 60 years at current consumption. But, energy experts are questioning how much gas is technically recoverable at a reasonable cost. Greenpeace energy campaigner Leila Deen is sceptical and claims that shale gas will do little to lower energy bills. “Pinning the UK’s energy hopes on an unsubstantiated, polluting fuel is a massive gamble and consumers and the climate will end up paying the price,” she said. Renewable energy, on the other hand, offers a sustainable energy future, thousands of new jobs and more stable energy prices.
Ben Caldecott, head of policy at the boutique investment bank Climate Change Capital, said: “Fracking will continue to generate significant local opposition, which will undermine long-term political support and the investment case for a UK shale gas expansion.” Environmental organisations like Greenpeace are against the use of gas reserves until the impacts of fracking are fully investigated and understood. Both experts and the public must be confident that it is safe for production to advance. We must be sure that we’re not selling our environment down the river for short-term energy gains.
Shale gas could improve energy security and provide jobs and innovation needed to kickstart the economy — Rachael Stubbins gives the argument for shale gas
The Autumn Statement reaffirmed the UK’s need for gas over the coming decades. If shale gas follows the example of coal in the Industrial Revolution, it may help lead us fully out of recession.
The geology of Lancashire provides a unique opportunity that shouldn’t be wasted. Shale gas will generate significant tax revenues and thousands of jobs. Other energy-intensive industries will also benefit if the project is successful.
Energy markets
The real question is: what impact will shale gas have on energy markets? There is an expectation that fracking will solve our energy problems, but the truth is – until we frack and test the reservoirs, we don’t know whether there is a viable resource to exploit.
Resource estimates are notoriously volatile – those of shale gas company Cuadrilla Resourcesand the British Geological Survey vary by a factor of 40. We don’t have much experience – fracking was banned in the UK almost as soon as it started.
Cuadrilla estimates that there are around 200 trillion cubic feet of gas under Lancashire, but more data are needed. We are still in the exploration phase – so let’s not shut it down before it’s even begun. After all, the development and expansion of the shale gas industry has many potential benefits.
Importantly, it could significantly improve our energy security. Within 30 years, we will be wholly reliant on imported gas from volatile regions such as the Middle East or Russia that have poorer regulatory regimes in terms of safety, emissions and environmental contamination. It is cheaper to generate rather than import gas and the emissions of shale gas are up to 10 per cent less than imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Local communities
The biggest concern regarding shale gas is from local communities, about earthquakes, increased traffic in rural villages and water pollution. The green movement has jumped on this. The environmental risks that they put forward are over-hyped and can be managed by regulation – as long as it is stricter than in the USA. A strong independent regulator such as in other parts of the energy sector is perfectly achievable.
Alongside regulation, the government must work with Cuadrilla to explain the benefits – for the locals and for the country as a whole. Fear grows from confusion. There is nothing new about fracking – it has been done for years, but without much fanfare as it wasn’t considered economically viable.
If these concerns are not legitimate, the industry needs to show this. They can customise and improve upon the information from the USA.
The exploitation of shale gas will not enable the UK to meet its international commitments under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements, but we should have cut down our carbon emissions years ago. Renewables are nowhere near the stage of being a dependable energy source. Shale gas might not be clean energy but it’s a better alternative to coal, which currently provides over 40 per cent of our energy.
Shale gas alongside renewables
The investment in renewables and shale gas is not mutually exclusive. They should be complementary. It is important to have energy flexibility and fuel diversity. Cuadrilla’s prediction that shale gas could provide 20 per cent of the UK’s gas demand is probably not feasible, but this doesn’t change the importance of continuing with shale gas exploration.
The game-changer in the fracking debate has always been policy. As a result of hyperbole from green lobbyists, complicated language from developers and an incoherent government approach, there was the real prospect that we might strangle this new industry at birth.
With a bit of luck, EU interference and the government’s fiscal frameworks won’t put off companies like Cuadrilla from continuing with exploration. In uncertain economic times, we need such uncertain technologies and innovation to drive industry and drag us out of recession.
Katherine Portilla 