Hydraulic fracturing, known more commonly as
fracking, is when natural gas, called shale gas, is extracted from deposits in
sedimentary rock deep below the Earth’s surface.
Up until December 2012, fracking was banned in the
UK but the government’s U-turn prompted promises of economic boom and fuel
security from some corners, while others told of environmental crisis and false
claims of prosperity.
So, what exactly is wrong with fracking and who is
telling the truth?
Lots of big words
Now, just to be sure that we all know what we’re
talking about, we need to get to grips with the terminology.
The first thing that is confusing is the term
‘natural’ gas. We live in a society where the word ‘natural’ is used to
describe products and services that are generally deemed to be healthy,
holistic and good for us. Natural gas is an exception. It is a fossil fuel that
exists as a gas trapped between rocks formed millions of years ago. Fossil
fuels exist in other, more familiar, states of matter such as liquid (oil) and
solid (coal). When prehistoric plants and animals died, they were gradually
buried under layers of rock and the energy that was within them was stored
beneath the ground. The buried remains were put under pressure and over
millions of years they turned into fossil fuels and the chemical energy from
the plants and animals was stored inside them. Humans, being the apparently
clever things that they are, figured out long ago that it was possible to
release this energy and use it for useful things, such as warmth, powering
machinery and generating electricity, primarily by burning them.
If you’ve been paying attention at all over the
last couple of decades you will know that fossil fuels are considered
unsustainable as they cannot be readily renewed: there is a finite amount and
once it runs out, there will be no more. There is also the problem that when
these fuels are burnt, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is
carbon dioxide that is supposed to be stored deep below the Earth’s surface and
has been proven time and again to be responsible for warming the temperature of
our planet, resulting is all sorts of problems, collectively known as climate
change. Because of these two factors, energy from fossil fuels is also known as
non-renewable, or ‘dirty’ energy.
The opposite form of energy is known as renewable,
‘clean’, or ‘green’ energy such as solar, hydro and wind power, that (as the
name suggests) continue for as long as there is sun, moving water or wind
without running out. Which is forever really. It does not consume an energy
source and it does not produce carbon emissions.
What is shale gas?
Shale gas is the name given to natural gas (mainly
methane) that is trapped in a sedimentary rock, known as shale, a mile or so
beneath the Earth’s surface. The shale gas is dispersed through the rock in
small pockets, not dissimilar to the way that the CO2 bubbles are dispersed through bread dough.
In other words, there may be the odd big bubble but really there are lots and
lots of very small amounts spread out over a large area. If you simply drilled
a hole downwards, the amount of gas you would reach would be very small and the
pressure, or lack of it, would mean that very little would reach the surface.
By drilling down into the shale, turning ninety degrees and drilling across,
more gas is reachable, but still not enough. What is required is the ability to
join the dots. Water, containing all sorts of chemicals and bits and bobs to
make it flow better, is forced into the hole under great pressure. This liquid
creates hairline fractures (fracking, geddit?) that effectively join up the
small pockets of gas and force it to the surface. The liquid even contains
small particles of sand or ceramics to prop open the fractures so that the gas
can flow more easily.
Amazing really.
Why do we need shale gas?
In the past, natural gas deposits were relatively
easy to access. Great Britain’s discovery of North Sea oil (which confusingly
includes natural gas) in the 1970s meant fuel security for a nation that had
struggled with massive power cuts at the start of the decade. Those gas reserves are almost finished. It
estimated that the major part of the UK’s North Sea oil reserves has already been taken, with the remaining 30-40%
predicted to disappear within the next 25 years, with production already in massive decline.
Globally it’s acknowledged that we’re running out of oil and coal. Basically,
if we want to carry on driving cars, heating homes and flying planes, as well
as less obvious but arguably more important things such as producing and
transporting food (amongst other things), then we need to find an alternative.
Otherwise we’re buggered.
To some minds, the answer lies in the ‘new’ fuel -
shale gas. It is so-called as it's only fairly recently that technological
developments have allowed this gas to be extracted in an economically viable
way.
Why is it good?
An ‘endless’ supply: Those in the
‘fracking-is-good’ camp, rejoice the fact that there is a lot of shale gas
tucked away under the towns, cities and countryside of Great Britain. They’ve
even found a few large pockets in various parts of the country and estimate
that these gas reserves will be gone within the next fifty years.
Yes, it’s ok, we can carry on as we have been for a little longer. We’ve found
a way to push the problem along by another generation so we don’t have to think
about the consequences just yet. It’s the energy equivalent of finding another
bottle of booze tucked away at the back of the cupboard just at that point in
the party when supplies are running out and it seems as if the merriment will
have to stop. A cheer goes up, everyone gets excited and the environmental
hangover is instantly forgotten to be dealt with in the morning. Except now
it’s going to be an even bigger hangover than it was before that last bottle
was found.
It works in America: Many
proponents of fracking look to the USA as proof that fracking will provide a
huge economic boost. Not only will it provide more fuel to keep industry going
and give energy companies the fuel to burn so that they can charge us for
electricity, it will also provide employment for clever engineers extracting
the gas, lorry drivers who need to move various resources around to make the
engineers’ job possible (by transporting millions of litres of water in
vehicles, burning more non-renewable fuel) and various other jobs linked to the
industry. The problem is, as with most things that compare the US and Great
Britain, we’re similar, but different. For those of you that want a detailed
analysis of why the perceived successes of the USA won’t be repeated over here, the New York Times published a very comprehensive
article earlier this year. For those of you that can’t be bothered
to read it, the argument is this: our geology is different. Our rock is
different to their rock and we can’t get as much gas out as they did. We won’t
make as much money as they did because they managed to get crude oil out at the
same time. If you hear someone (i.e. David Cameron or another politician) say
that it’s going to make us loads of money and save the economy, they’re lying. And even if they weren’t, it
wouldn’t last very long, as we’ve already proved that it’s going to run out.
It’s cleaner than oil or coal: Natural gas
does burn cleaner than either coal or oil. It produces less carbon dioxide and
less sulphur dioxide. In the USA, due to a supply glut of natural gas in the
winter of 2010-11, lower gas prices made the fuel more competitive with coal
for electricity, so the energy companies burnt that instead and it helped
the U.S. reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions. Which is
fantastic, if coal, oil and gas were the only options in terms of energy. While
less is definitely better, and a move in the right direction, the green
technologies available today, with the right investment in infrastructure,
could provide as much energy as we need, for as long as we
need it.
Which leads on nicely to…
It will be a source of cheap energy: Hooray!
Cheap electricity! Yay! Shale gas promises us a future of cheap electricity.
Why? Because of the massive fossil fuel subsidies paid out by governments
worldwide perpetuate the myth that fossil fuels provide cheap energy. Because
of these subsidies, energy companies are able to keep their prices
comparatively low for consumers, compared to their green equivalents. Figures from the Overseas Development Institute
suggest that globally, in 2011, for every $1 spent to support renewable energy,
another $6 were spent on fossil fuel subsidies. Would ‘green’ energy
costs change if it were afforded the same kind of subsidies? As with many ‘new’
technologies, it is the investment in infrastructure that is
expensive. It’s not that the UK can’t produce enough power, we have more off-shore wind farms than all other countries
combined. Without investment in an infrastructure that can cope with
the less predictable nature of green energy, we end up with the ridiculous
situation where wind farms were paid to switch off during
Christmas 2013, while thousands of homes were left without power, because the
grid couldn’t deal with the extra electricity produced. What a waste.
Why is it bad?
What, apart
from being unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly and an economic illusion?
Read on.
Water: given the
scale of the recent floods, you may think that we have more than enough water
to go around. In fact, we could do with getting rid of some. But if there is
one thing those events prove, it is that we are far from able to manage our
water table and have little or no control over where it ends up. This time last
year, the Environment Agency was warning that both droughts and floods in Britain would
become commonplace in the future. The events of the last 12 months
have seen them proved right. We are in a position where management of a
valuable resource is becoming impossible, yet we are encouraging the use of
millions of litres of water to frack each well.
A chemical
cocktail: notwithstanding the financial and environmental implications of such vast water use,
the chemicals involved in the process mean that there are plenty opportunities
for spillage of the wastewater, as well as the spillage of fracking chemicals like
hydrochloric acid. At various stages, the list of chemical ingredients may include
hydrochloric acid, petroleum distillates, ammonium persulphate, calcium
chloride, boric acid, citric acid, borate salts, and many more additives.
Exposure to high amounts of some common frack-fluid chemicals, like ethylene
glycol (a key antifreeze ingredient), have been linked to serious health problems, such as
kidney, heart, and nervous-system damage. Others, like sodium chloride (table
salt) and guar gum (a common food thickener derived from beans) are generally
benign.
Anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of the original fluid volume
doesn’t come back out of the well right away and remains underground for years.
Equipment failures and well blowouts can send wastewater flowing into nearby rivers and
streams adding to the environmental impact and potentially doing
untold damage. Fracking is new, the massive cock-ups are still to come,
although there have been a few so far…
Flames and tremors: We’ve all heard the tales of flaming taps and radioactive cows in
America, but problems are already occurring in the UK. A report published by the Department for Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) concludes that fracking experiments were
responsible for earthquakes near Blackpool in early 2011. On 1 April and 27 May 2011, two earthquakes
with magnitudes of 2.3 ML and 1.5 ML were detected in the Blackpool area. These
earthquakes were immediately suspected to be linked to fracking in the area. As
a result of the earthquakes, fracking operations were suspended and the company
behind the operations, Cuadrilla Resources, commissioned a number of studies
into the relationship between the earthquakes and their operations. Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting
fluid underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more
likely to slip. The result is an "induced" quake. Given
that shale gas deposits can be found under a large number of towns and cities
in the UK, would you want fracking to happen under your house?
Burning natural gas, although it may be cheap in
terms of money, it is not in terms of climate. When you look at the whole
natural gas package, from production through use and waste disposal, it’s clear
that natural gas exacts a steep environmental toll, particularly when it’s
fracked. In addition to the amount of water involved, and the huge quantities
of chemical-containing wastewater, there is air pollution from heavy machinery
at the drill sites and hydrocarbons released by the wells, which scientists are
just beginning to investigate.
Reliance on fossil fuels, and the associated subsidies, means that
investment in sustainable green energies is being delayed. We are simply
postponing the inevitable. We may get away with only minimal inconvenience in
our lifetime, but our children will bear the consequences of our actions. And
what about our grandchildren?
What you can do:
If everyone in the UK who was concerned about fracking did these next
three simple steps, imagine the impact we would have. You don’t even need to
leave your computer and it takes less time than brewing a cup of tea.
Register
your opposition and protect your home: It is unlawful for fracking companies to drill
under your home without your permission. Go to www.wrongmove.org
to search your postcode and join the legal block today to protect your home and
your community.
Check your
energy company: The energy supplier that you use will likely be
burning varying amounts of fossil fuels to provide you with electricity. Take a
look at this information to determine the mix of
fuel you energy company is using, then take action.
 |
Change your
energy supplier and do some good: one you’ve decided which is the energy supplier
for you, it’s time to change. By using unfrack.me you will be showing both
suppliers and the Government that you want a sustainable energy supply. And if
you need more convincing, by using this route you will also be supporting a social
enterprise committed to securing the future of our food
system.
Both energy AND food security? What could be better for a brighter
future than that?
