A drilling rig testing for the possibility of fracking in Lancashire. Photograph by KA
Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) is currently one of the energy industry’s hottest topics due to its controversial techniques in the recovery of natural gases (hydrocarbons) from shale rock. Although its ease of access means a whole new means of sourcing energy and boost in gas production; questions arise around the stories of possible minor earthquakes to water contamination. Can we really split fact from fiction?
Fracking is the process of drilling down vertically for approximately a mile into the surface of the Earth before turning horizontally and blasting a high pressure water mixture against the rock inside. This causes fractures in the shale in which natural gases can flow and be transported upwards onto the surface via piping.
Recent advancements in drilling technology have led to once unreachable areas of exploration now being readily available to drill and create man-made fractures deep in the ground. The drilling process can take up to a month whilst exploration can lead immediately to production.
The water used in creating the fractures is made up of components including water and sand whilst often a small amount of chemicals (0.25% of the liquid) are used to lubricate and purify the area.
Throughout the US, fracking has taken place for over 65 years in its most primitive form. In 2000 shale beds provided only 1% of America’s natural gas supply however today this stands at an almost staggering 25%. Although this technique works in the US and similarly to the UK has gained a split in opinion; will it be cheaper than renewable energy resources or is it simply a home grown cash cow?
Below are the key factors and balanced arguments in why fracking is such a political and industrial hot bed of confusion.
Fracking diagram by Al Granberg / ProPublica
UK benefits of Fracking
One of the main advantages of fracking is that it allows natural energy sources to be excavated in-land rather than off-shore. The US has provided evidence to suggest that gas prices have decreased hand in hand with the success of fracking. It is estimated that in the UK the production of shale gas could mean energy security for up to 200 years and created the opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.
This shows us that there is a mammoth amount of energy resource that is available to use. According to many energy experts renewable energy is not yet ready for the “prime-time” due to the slow development in technology and its lack of a cost effective end product.
Fracking can also provide the generation of jobs and can have a dramatic positive boost to the UK economy. The Institute of Mechanical Engineers have predicted that up to 1300 jobs can be created per year over a ten year period at a proposed site in Lancashire alone.
Monica Cristina from Shale Gas Europe has welcomed the decision to considered fracking. She was recently quoted explaining how the new form of exploration is highly beneficial:
“The potential opportunity is substantial. As the British Geological Survey estimates, UK shale gas resources may be 50% larger than conventional gas resources. With exploratory drilling now going ahead, estimates will be more accurate and the British Geological Survey is due to release a more comprehensive estimate of the UK’s shale gas resources in 2013.”
UK Negatives of Fracking – “The Jury Is Still Out”
With the benefits of shale gas there is the negatives. Fracking has previously been linked to a number of environmental problems, particularly in the US. In the UK there are greater environmental checks by the DECC and Environmental Agency.
Water pollution has become an issue of concern to many in the UK. The leaking of gases such as methane has become evident in the US and is of grave concern to many surrounded by fracking sites. Throughout the US, home owners have found that that they set tap water alight due to the concentration of methane.
As well as methane there is a risk of radioactive waste being brought up to the surface which could potentially impact water supplies. This can be combatted by tubular casing, however once a borehole has been completely fracked, the hole is sealed up and gases become dormant and linger.
During April 2011 a small Earthquake measuring 2.2 on the Richter scale hit Blackpool in the UK and it was subsequently found to be an effect from nearby fracking. The tremor caused no structural damage or injury, however it presented clear findings that fracking can cause movements underground.
Corin Taylor, a senior economic advisor at the IOD is actively against drilling for shale gas:
“The key problem surrounding fracking is climate change. Supporters of the process might claim that shale gas has lower carbon emissions than coal but the jury is still out. In fact there is peer-reviewed evidence showing that shale gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal. Methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, is leaking from the wells and not being captured.
Fracking is not the way to meet Britain’s climate change targets or its power needs. The UK must start moving fast to decarbonise the way in which it generates electricity, which is critical if it is going to meet its legally binding carbon emissions targets.”
There is no doubt that fracking has a whole host of positives and negatives, but it’s about which outweighs the other. With current test digs taking place in the UK, this could dictate whether or not extraction will continue in the UK and the ways in which it will be regulated to ensure the healthiest environment.
7 Comments
LOL this is absolute drivel I’m afraid – take “One of the main advantages of fracking is that it allows natural energy sources to be excavated in-land rather than off-shore” as a simple example – that statement is rubbish
And Corin Taylor of the IoD far from being “actively against drilling for shale gas” is so much in favour that he has invented highly questionable projections of the number of jobs it will bring in which he then refuses to justify in any meaningful way.
Do some proper research!
Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as Refracktion in the language used, I really have to agree that this article is inutterably badly researched, and just plain wrong in some respects. One of the reasons the issue is divisive is precisely because those opposed to fracking, many of whom have studied the subject actively for some years now, are increasingly angered and frustrated by the poor quality of debate.
Can you explain more what is wrong here? I keep seeing articles like this that don;t seem to biased one way or another, and the comments always brim with detractors. But the comments rarely get above name calling (like Refraktion below). Can you elaborate please so I might actually learn something!
Jack. I sympathise in a way, assuming your question is genuine.
It’s not the bias that is the issue here so much as the accuracy. Refracktion is right regarding Corin Talylor. He, and the institute he represents, have taken a very active pro-fracking role. They recently produced a pro-fracking report which was actually paid for by Cuadrilla, who as we all know now are the pioneers or pro-fracking exploration and hype in the UK.
The writer of the article has just got it wrong. This quote in fact came from Tony Bosworth of FoE.
Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. The government is trying to demonise protestors against fracking as having outlandish and unsubstantiable arguments. It is articles like this that make people like me despair.
Take this
” It is estimated that in the UK the production of shale gas will off energy security for up to 200 years and created the opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.”
This is simply a ludicrous lie. Let’s forget the illiteracy. No one has ever suggested that onshore shale gas can provide security for 200 years. Debate rages about the GHG emissions of shale gas. The writer should go back to kindergarten.
Or maybe, to be kinder, she should read my book Fracking The UK. And follow developments since earlier this year on http://www.frackingdigest.co.uk
I did not start off being an anti-fracking zealot. I studied the evidence. I read report after report, not just press release statements. I changed my mind. I admit that fully. I did become biased. because the more I read the more I realised I was being lied to by the industry and by government, and I realised the reasons why.
I see myself on the moderate side of the anti-fracking movement. Open to reason, to facts. But even I have been outraged at how the present government seems to throw caution to the wind and embark on an extremely damaging policy.
This in part answers your question, for me personally. This for me is the most serious environmental issue (and with a lot of social implications) that has ever arisen in my lifetime. And I am no spring chicken. If I do not speak my mind now I will not be able to salve my conscience later.
Thank you! I really do appreciate the explanation.
One more question if you don’t mind – what do you think should be the answer to our energy requirements? Coal is pretty dirty, so maybe nuclear? From what I understand wind/solar/tidal cannot take up the slack?
Thanks again, I’ve been really struggling to get my head around all the conflicting info on the web!
Jack, I personally get a little philosophical in answering tjis sort of question. If I see a rape, I don’t really consider what other options would have been available to the perpetrator, I just condemn rape as a bad answer to that individual’s needs. That’s the way I feel about fracking. It’s a wrong answer.
There is no simple answer as to how to combat climate change, how to overcome fears and prejudices against renewable energy methods.
What I am damn sure of is that the future should not include the old technologies. Environmentalists are often accused of being Luddites. In my opinion the people who propose the continuation of the old technologies, the damaging carbon-cased technologies, and fight against the new are the true successors of the Luddites tradition. I am convinced that new technology research adequately funded now is the way forward to giving us a chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, and shale is a stumbling block.
Oh I agree, but with energy security so important to the economy I don’t see how we can “nudge” companies towards clean(er) energy.
I have always been a supporter of nuclear as the stopgap solution to provide this energy security with no carbon emissions until renewable clean energy is available to scale, but public perception of nuclear is so negative it is difficult.