Fracking: energy saviour or environmental threat?
The word ‘fracking’ is not exactly a commonplace term in daily use. Until recently, only experts ever used it and many people – perhaps most – still don’t know what it means. But that’s all set to change. Fracking, according to its supporters, may well turn out to be the solution to the country’s energy needs for the coming half-century. To others, though, it could be the next environmental disaster in the making. So what is it? And should we embrace or fear it?
‘Fracking’, or hydraulic fracturing (to give it its proper name), is a technique for extracting natural gas from the shale deposits that lie scattered about deep under the surface of the earth. The technique involves digging small wells usually hundreds of metres deep and sometimes as far down as three kilometres until the shale deposit is reached. Then the drilling turns horizontal and a mixture of water, sand and a cocktail of chemicals is pumped at very high pressure down the bore hole. This fractures the shale, releasing the gas that lies naturally within it through pores in the rock. The gas is then brought to the surface and the pumped sand fills the pores so that they do not collapse.
Controversial report
This week a group of experts published a report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change recommending that the practice of fracking should be allowed in Britain. Their report followed the controversial digging of experimental wells in Lancashire last year by the company, Cuadrilla Resources. The experiments were controversial because they were followed by minor earthquakes in the area round Blackpool which the company itself acknowledged were triggered by the drilling. Unsurprisingly, the quakes caused widespread public alarm and calls for fracking to be banned in Britain, as it is in France and Bulgaria. The DECC commissioned the report just published to establish whether such a reaction would be justified by the risks involved, or whether it would be irrational to turn our backs on this source of energy.
It’s not hard to see why Britain would want to get its hands on the gas beneath its soil if it could do so without triggering an environmental disaster. The country has a problem about how to secure the energy it will need in the medium to long-term. The bonanza of North Sea oil is coming to an end. World oil production is set to peak soon, or may already even have done so, and in any case tackling climate change requires us to wean ourselves off high carbon-emitting energy sources such as oil and coal.
In recent years our solution to the problem has been to make the ‘dash for gas’. Burning gas does emit carbon but it’s less harmful than oil and coal. The problem is that most of ours has to be imported, either from the Middle East or from Russia, leaving us, in the eyes of many, dangerously dependent on political regimes we cannot rely upon. To avoid this, some have advocated expanding nuclear power and the Government intends to do this. But it faces obstacles here too, not only in continuing public unease at what are perceived by many as the unacceptable safety risks of nuclear power, but also in actually getting new nuclear power stations built. Recently, two German companies pulled out of deals to build new nuclear power stations here as a result of the German government’s decision to stop its own nuclear programme.
Energy source?
Renewable energy is, of course, the long-term solution advocated by many. But in the short-to-medium term expanding energy production from solar and wind power has its own problems. Only last week the Government announced it would block all further major online wind-farms in the face both of public opposition and rising costs. So, to many, getting hold of our own shale gas through fracking looks like the only solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
Cuadrilla claims there is enough gas below Lancashire alone to satisfy our gas needs for the next fifty years, and although many pooh-pooh such claims as self-interested, independent experts acknowledge that the quantity of gas that could be extracted from Lancashire and elsewhere in Britain is substantial.
Supporters of fracking point to the United States as having already led the way. Large-scale fracking has been practised there since the early 1980s and has taken off in the last decade. Shale gas now amounts to a quarter of America’s gas production with the result that the price of gas has fallen there by 25% since 2008. The same could happen here, it’s argued.
But what about the earthquakes? Two occurred in Blackpool last year. The one in April measured 2.3 on the Richter scale; the one a month later, 1.5. These are low figures for earthquakes and did no serious damage to property. But the quakes could certainly be felt and inevitably caused alarm. Cuadrilla accepted that their drilling probably caused the quakes but argued that they were in no sense exceptional. Such small, imperceptible quakes happen naturally all the time and conventional mining often triggers minor disturbances such as these. There is no reason, it’s claimed, to believe that fracking could cause serious earthquakes.
Pollution fears
Another environmental worry, however, is potential water pollution. Fracking involves injecting large quantities of water and chemicals down into the earth but only about quarter of it is then returned to the surface. It’s what happens to the rest that alarms people. In particular, they fear that leaks of this polluted water underground could seep into the aquifers from which we draw our drinking water. But such fears are unfounded, according to some experts, since there is usually hundreds of feet of rock, if not more, between the shale deposits where the pressurised water is released and the aquifers above them.
All in all, the experts reporting to the DECC concluded that fracking could go ahead so long as some safeguards were introduced. They want smaller volumes of water to be injected into the wells and more of it returned to the surface after the fracking has been completed. They want seismic monitoring equipment to be installed to keep a check on any quake activity. And they want a traffic light system to be introduced so that if seismic activity is detected above a certain level, the drilling can be stopped.
Will this be enough to allay fears? Probably not. One of the problems for fracking is that the risks it may entail are all out of sight, deep under the surface of the earth. What is unseen is what is often most feared. In Lancashire, although many people recognise what a boon fracking could be for jobs and the local economy (nationally, it’s been estimated 50,000 jobs could be created), many also fear what it could do to their environment.
As ever, it will be for politicians to handle the consequences of ‘fracking’ becoming an all-too familiar word.
What’s your view?
- From what you know about fracking, do you think it is something we should encourage in Britain, as it is in the United States, or ban, as it is in France and Bulgaria?
- How willing are you to defer to the views of experts, such as those who have just produced a report for the Government, or do you need other evidence before backing their views?
- Do you think talk of fracking causing earthquakes is justified or a misuse of language?
- Are you satisfied or not with the claim that fracking is highly unlikely to pollute water supplies?
- Do you think the safeguards proposed by the committee of experts are adequate?
- f you are opposed to fracking, how do you think Britain should try to solve its energy problems?
- And do you think fracking will get the go-ahead from the Government or not?
Let us know your views in the comments below.
