Fracking in the UK

I had meant to write this blog at the beginning of October when the Government's decision on fracking in Lancashire came through, but as I've been behind in my blogs I'm afraid this is coming now.  I still wanted to post it though, especially after the Scottish Government's report brought out yesterday, and the time has given me the opportunity to read even more information on this.

So, to begin - what it fracking?

There has been so much information about fracking recently it is very likely that you already know this, but just in case you don't.......  Fracking is the slang for hydraulic fracturing and is the method of extracting gas or oil trapped below impermeable, shale rock that cannot be collected through conventional drilling alone.

It involves drilling vertically for about 2km (this part we've been doing since the 1940's for conventional oil extraction) and then drilling at a 90 degree angle for around 3km (a relatively recent discovery).  The gap between the borehole and the rock is then sealed with concrete and around 10 million litres containing sand, lubricating fluids and other additives are pumped into the borehole under extremely high pressure.  This opens up the cracks found throughout the shale and these cracks are kept open by the sand particles allowing the gas to escape.  A well head is then installed on the surface to capture the released gas.  Once all the gas and/or oil has been removed from that area the well head is then removed and the shale rock returns back to its original position.

Problems associated with fracking.

Most of the information we have on the issues associated with fracking comes from America, where fracking has been used as a method for extracting fossil fuels for many years.  Despite the claims of clean and safe methods by the fuel companies there have been many reports of health issues and environmental contaminations in connection to the fracking industry.  Research by Duke University (later published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011) testing the drinking water at 60 sites across Pennsylvania and New York and found that the drinking water near fracking sites had levels of methane which were in the range designated dangers by the US Department of Interiors.  

While there is not a legal requirement in America for companies to make public information regarding the chemicals used in their fracking process, compounds like benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and n-hexane have been found to be released into the air in fracking areas.  Long term exposure to these chemicals are linked to birth defects, neurological issues, blood disorders and cancer.  

There has also been a connection between the industry and earthquakes with previous non-earthquake prone states, such as Ohio and Oklahoma, experiencing strong seismic activities.  The UK itself has experienced this when in April 2011 Cuadrilla Resources first well in Weeton, Lancashire, caused two small earthquakes and dozens of aftershocks.  Tremors were felt in Blackpool and the company had to halt works for an investigation to occur.  However, they did carry on drilling in other wells. 

Fracking in the UK.

While we do have a relative large fracking industry off shore in the UK, onshore fracking is still only at the exploration phase at the moment.  A report by the British Geological Survey, published in 2012, estimated that could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas in the North of England alone, stretching from Lancashire to Yorkshire, which could supply Britain with electricity for decades. Other areas have been ear-marked throughout the UK.  However, it is still not certain how much oil or gas is actually commercially recoverable with more exploratory drilling needed to give us a clearer picture.  Companies such as Cuadrilla, Becconsall, Celtique Energies, and Coastal Oil and Gas have all requested licenses to drill exploratory wells onshore in the UK, with many of the sites receiving the go ahead from the UK Government.  These are still few in number, for now, but the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) is expecting the number of these exploratory well sites to increase to 100 over the next 10 years.  However, a license from the Government does not allow the company to start fracking straight away as they also have to receive planning permission from the local councils.  Unfortunately, it seems that a council's ability to determine if fracking occurs in their local area or not has now been taken away from them as the British Government last month overturned the Lancashire County Council's decision in June 2015 to prevent fracking at Little Plumpton (as yet there has been no decision on Roseacre Wood). 

To support fracking Downing Street has promised to fast track shale gas planning applications to 'crack down' on councils trying to delay any decisions on this and has offered tax breaks to fracking companies.  In December last year MPs voted to allow fracking to occur at 1,200m below our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty and World Heritage Sites despite pledging on outright ban on National Park earlier in the year. 

It is expected that fracking will be different in the UK to the USA due to difference in the geology (which will theoretically lead to a smaller footprint), the stricter standards for well quality with regular inspections and the more stringent regulations, such as requiring the companies to monitor the water quality throughout the fracking process and disclose of which chemicals they are using.  Also the British Government already has restrictions on a number of the chemicals used in the US and will have higher standards for dealing with the very large amount of radioactive and toxic wastewater that is produced from fracking.  Rather than being burnt, as it does in USA, excess gas produced by this process will be captured on the surface and fed into the national gas supply.  However, despite these promises of higher standards Cuadrilla Resources has already been warned by ministers for failing to recognize the damage done to it's well by the 2011 earthquake and for failing to report this for 6 months. 

Tuesday's report from the Scottish Government has shown that, while there was sufficient evidence to suggest that there would be a number of air and waterborne environmental hazards in connection with the process which could put at risk those living near to fracking sites and those working on site (breathing in crystalline silica), there was inadequate data to determine if the developing of fracking would pose an overall risk to public health.  Some have argued, though, that this report hasn't taken into account that a number of the potential fracking sites are located in densely populated areas.

Why the Government says it's necessary and what might be wrong with this statement?

The UK Government has been pushing for onshore fracking stating that it would reduce our reliance on imported energy, generate economic benefits, especially for local councils, and create tens of thousands of jobs.  They have used the US as an example of how it reduces the cost of electricity and heating, and have argued that fracking will be in keeping with the UK's moves towards low carbon energy systems. With all these we have been told that it would be 'irresponsible' to not carry out tracking wherever we can.

However, fracking will only help the UK transition to low carbon energy systems if it is replacing a higher carbon energy sources, such as coal power.  At the moment the carbon benefits of shale gas is actually still unclear (shale oil even more so) and new evidence from the USA has shown that while fracking has reduced coal consumption, it has not significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gases.  So, even if it is classified as a low carbon energy system it is unlikely to greatly reduce our carbon emissions over the coming years.  

The cost saving may also not be as high as the Government has been stating either as the UK isn't as sparsely populated as the US but also the higher regulatory standards found in the UK will, perhaps ironically, mean that companies will have to invest more into their infrastructure, significantly reducing the cost savings actually seen by us customers.  Economic and job improvements to local areas will also be temporary as fracking is not a permanent process and wells that run dry are then closed down and the infrastructure then moved.  As companies will likely want to move skilled staff with them rather than go through the cost of retraining, it's debatable whether the increase in employment potential is likely to be as high as originally promised.

The uncertainty around the safety aspects is still the main worry for many people and the Government's own Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) themselves have highlighting the uncertainties associated with the impacts of shale gas.  The impact of shale oil is even more uncertain and these are not adequately covered by the safety measures put in place for shale gas.  There are also other environmental factors specific to the UK that need to be taken into account, like the water shortages in the South East which would make fracking in that area unsustainable and the fact that we are a much more densely populated area so any breach in the safety standards could have quite severe consequences.  The recent issues with oil leaks in our oceans has made many question how prepared our oil companies are to deal with a major contamination event, such as waste entering our water supplies, and whether they even have adequately insurance.  

Perhaps the biggest issue with fracking is how it is taking us further away from the actions we need to take to prevent climate change.  Scientists have already calculated that, if we are to avoid two degrees of global warming, we must leave four-fifths of the already known fuels in the ground and yet our Government is now setting us on a path to find and extract more fossil fuels then we know of already.  Based on the evidence coming out of the US this is unlikely to help us meet our targets or help us set in motions the work needed to take us off fossil fuels and move us into more renewable energies.

One thing I think is important to note here is the differences between our Government's behaviour towards onshore fracking and onshore windfarms.  Both would generate an income for local councils and Britain as a whole.  Both would reduce our reliance on imported energy and, it could be argued, windfarms would reduce this reliance for longer.  Both would create tens of thousands of jobs, with jobs remain in local areas for longer at windfarm sites due to their maintenance needs, while fracking moves away once all the fuel has been removed.  And an increase in windfarms will also reduce our electricity and heating costs in the long run.  Yet, while the Government have stated, unequivocally, that they will push forward fracking even if local councils rule against it occurring in their county, local opposition to windfarms have been given the power to block applications.  While fracking companies will be getting tax breaks, they are planning to remove subsidies that windfarm companies receive.  The Government has also promised to provide cash handouts to local people in fracking areas and yet the same incentive is not offered to those living in areas of onshore windfarms.  This is despite onshore windfarms being proven to be a low-cost, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.  Of course, I couldn't possible comment on why they may have made this decision.

There are a number of sites you can go to to get more information.  Not surprisingly Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have information and Frack Off allows you to see all the locations in the UK connected to fracking.  But, to get the Government's point of view it's worth looking at their own publications, like their guidance to fracking and their FAQ page.