Future of Fracking

The future of fracking has been in doubt recently due to the drop in oil prices, if this continues or even remains at this low price the shale gas industry will likely go into a state of collapse. The stability, and therefore future, of the shale gas industry is different for each country depending on economy, accessibility to gas reserves and import/export opportunities. The industry is constantly advancing however, more recently with horizontal drilling and high volume fracking to reach gas previously inaccessible either due to protected land or geology characteristics.

In the USA the process of hydraulic fracturing emits 40% of their total methane (EPA, 2012) but new fracking regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA in 2012 are set to dramatically reduce the countries greenhouse gas emissions. Since these regulations were put in place the industries methane emissions have fallen by 13%. Technologies are being advanced to capture more and more of the greenhouse gases emitted by fracking, particularly methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), this is known as ‘green completion.’

Increased knowledge of the severe impacts of oil and coal have pushed many people into the arms of fracking but there are still climate, water and health impacts involved in shale gas meaning it is likely (or hopefully) going to only exist as a temporary solution. The fact that not all of the problems associated with fracking are yet known, particularly in the UK, means that the future of the industry remains unclear. A lot of the industry’s future depends heavily on demand and supply, can the low price of gas persist? If it doesn’t due to the high cost of the fracking process  and prices begin to rise it is likely that people will finally turn their attention to renewables in hope of cheaper energy. So maybe fracking is just the final step in getting us to a carbon-free, renewable society.

Finally, one of the main questions influencing the fracking industries future is whether it can it be trusted despite a track record of environmental disasters. Since the release of Gasland (see previous blog) it has been no secret that the process of fracking can have very serious environmental and health impacts surrounding the site as well as global climate impacts. This has caused massive public opposition towards the industry meaning any advancement needs to deal with fixing these problems prior to anything else if it going to be supported.  

The Fracking Song

This amazing and annoyingly catchy song perfectly sums up everything you need to know about fracking from the main impacts to general public opinion. Enjoy. 

The Dash for Gas

The dash for gas was the move towards using natural gas for electricity in the 1990’s as it was thought of as a solution to climate change. It caused gas turbine power stations to go from just 5% of the UK’s generating capacity in 1990 to 28% in 2002.

This week the dash for gas continues as on Tuesday night MPs voted to allow fracking under national parks using horizontal drills stationed just outside the boundaries of protected areas. Since David Cameron announced last year that the UK is going ‘all out for shale gas’ it has been a never ending battle between supporters and opposition. One of the conditions for this new agreement states that any drilling that does take place under national parks has to be at a depth of at least 1200m to minimise any potential impacts.  

Not all MPs were on board with this week’s decision. For example, labour wanted a moratorium on fracking until it can be proven that it is a safe form of energy and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, is quoted in saying that it is a ‘complete lack of regard for protecting some of the most beautiful scenery in the UK’. The day after this vote 159 sites were granted licenses to explore for shale gas with the majority in northern England. This marked a 50% increase in the amount of fracking licenses awarded in the UK and it is estimated that the first shale gas production could begin by the end of the decade and energy imports could be almost halved within 15 years. 

On the other hand it is argued that this move will dramatically reduce the countries carbon emissions at the same time as increasing our energy security. It is a vital step that needs to be taken to move forward but strict regulations need to be set for protecting the environment and health and safety of the population. 

This decision is essentially as complete U-turn on earlier promises to keep fracking away from national parks and is a shock as the UN climate talks in Paris have only just ended, surely avoiding fossil fuels is a big part in the fight against climate change and the UK seems to be going in the opposite direction.

COP21

During the past 2 weeks the leaders of almost 200 countries have been negotiating in Paris in an attempt to reduce future global temperature increase to less than 2°C by reducing CO₂ emissions. A final agreement was made on Saturday evening that is both legally binding and voluntary but benefits all countries including developing nations so as not to inhibit any economic growth.

For more information on the final agreements made in Paris click here.

Although there were many arguments that natural gas exploration and use should be a major commodity during the climate talks particularly in developing countries there were also a lot of protests of which many have had hydraulic fracturing as their main target. One of the first major disruptions was caused by two protesters who interrupted Shumlin’s speech with a banner that read ‘fracked gas = climate change’ and called on him to end fracking in Vermont, USA. Also on the 10^th of December there was an international gathering organised by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) as an opportunity for people and groups who oppose fracking to meet, share experiences and create joint strategies for the future. 

There were also many side events during these two weeks in Paris including ‘Keeping Fossil Fuels in the Ground’ which focused on putting pressure on the US fracking industry particularly in California. One of the members of the panel is quoted saying “If you’re looking for good way to heat up the earth fast, poke holes in the earth and let methane pour out” and if I’m honest I think this is a pretty accurate explanation of fracking.

Fracking on Safari

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park is one of Africa’s largest wildlife reserves which straddles the border of Botswana and South Africa. Over ¾ of the conservation area lies in Botswana and it was announced this week that in September 2014 half of this land was very quietly sold to a UK based fracking company called Karoo Energy for natural gas exploration. Conservationists and park officials were not informed on this decision and were unaware of any licenses being issued.

The extent of the natural gas basin is still unknown (Corriganand Murtazashvili, 2015) but the energy company is core drilling (not fracking) two boreholes in the area which are due to be completed at the end of 2015. It is reported that the company has applied to renew licenses but no decision has been made and no mining licenses have yet been given.

It is unclear what impact this will have on the environment but it cannot be good for the protected wildlife that live in the reserve, it is upsetting to see one of the only remaining natural and unharmed environments on the planet is about to be subject to an incredibly invasive process just for a short-term economic benefit. The lions are not going to be happy when it scares away all their food. I definitely would not want to be working on a drilling site surrounded by angry, hungry lions. 

But wait, believe it or not there is yet another controversy in relation to fracking in Africa. Hilary Clinton is one of the major forces behind bringing the activity to Africa despite her being strongly opposed to fracking in the USA. She helped advise African and other world leaders on the benefits of fracking and even organised visits to drilling sites to show off how it works, her aim is apparently to use the US as a 'role model' for hydraulic fracturing around the world. The support provided by Clinton during her tenure in office has lead to many changes in policy in African nations and pushed them towards using natural gas as an energy source. 

Oil Price Collapse Due To Fracking

There was an article in the Evening Standard yesterday about how oil prices are rapidly falling and the unexpected/political reasons for this. Oil now costs around a third of what it did only one year ago at $40 a barrel rather than $100 and it is believed that this is due to the boom in the US fracking industry. Saudi Arabia aims to kill off as much of this industry as possible with lower oil prices so as to avoid the US becoming completely self-sufficient with no dependence on supply from the Middle East. This tactic could be considered good news to consumer nations such as much of Europe but it is not clear how long it could last. There is a flaw in this plan however, Saudi Arabia cannot maintain these low prices without losing too much money and once they go back up the US gas reserves will still be there ready to be fracked with higher profits than ever.

The Culprits

This blog aims to give a little bit of background on some of the main energy companies looking to start fracking in the UK.

Cuadrilla - Cuadrilla is an oil and gas exploration and production company formed in 2007 and based in Staffordshire with an aim to ‘recover natural resources’. They are currently pioneering natural gas exploration in the country with a main focus on the Bowland Shale basin in Lancashire. They claim that all work conducted by the company is regulated by the DECC, EA and relevant local authorities. Cuadrilla recognises that there are environmental risks associated with drilling for natural gas and have a ‘Protecting OurEnvironment’ section on their website with explanations of current and future plans to reduce impacts. 

IGas - IGas Energy Plc is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company based in London, it is the leading onshore hydrocarbon producer in the UK. They operate the largest number of onshore oil and gas wells in the UK with focus in the East Midlands. Their aim: “At IGas we want to play our part in diversifying Britain’s energy mix and reducing our reliance on imported resources.”

Dart Energy -(worst website I’ve ever seen) Dart Energy is involved in exploration and production of unconventional hydrocarbons, such as shale gas and coal seam gas (CSG). It hopes to demonstrate the potential of shale gas in the UK, particularly based around the Bowland Shale basin in Lancashire. 

In early 2014 IGas and Dart Energy joined forces to become the UK’s largest energy company in order to untap Britain’s energy potential on a bigger scale. They now cover over one million acres of potential fracking land and hope that this move further strengthens the industry and makes fracking for shale gas more viable. 

Rathlin Energy - A company that focuses on exploration and development of oil and gas reserves in the UK. Their main locations are found in Yorkshire and Northern Ireland. 

Shale Energy PLC - Shale energy is an independent and conventional onshore oil and gas exploration company with a “strong focus on safety and environmental responsibility”.

Fracking in the News (Part 2)

Oil and gas companies have the right to frack on 30 million acres of public land in the US and are targeting200 million acres on top of this, most of which lies within national forests and state parks. This article by One Green Planet highlights what areas are at risk all across the country. It includes:

• Glacier National Park, Montana which is being surrounded by fracking sites using horizontal drilling techniques. 
• White River National Forest, Colorado which is being targeted for 250,000 acres of land to be given up for fracking despite it being the countries most visited National Forest.
• George Washington National Forest, Virginia where 17% of the land is being targeted despite 4 million people relying on the Potomac River for drinking water.

Former New York Governor George Pataki stated in a debate recently that the solution to climate change isn't more layers of government regulation but rather technological advances such as hydraulic fracturing. He argued that we need to focus on innovation and technology to reduce any further damage. It is true that the USA is the only country to have reduced it carbon emissions, but could this really be due to the fracking boom? Yes fracking releases less CO2 emissions than using other fossil fuels such as coal and oil but that is not the only variable related to climate change and there are other impacts that need to be considered. If we are focusing on improving technology why not push all that focus over to making renewables more viable which would lead to dramatic drops in CO2 emissions?

In June 2015 Lancashire country council refused permission for energy company Cuadrilla to start fracking and seismic monitoring at two sites - Roseacre Wood and Little Plumpton, which they have appealed. The appeal will be heard by Wendy McKay in February after which she will write up a report and hand it to the government so the Secretary of Statecan have the final say. Local people fear this means their opinion will not be heard or considered in the decision making due to the governments known determination to pursue fracking as a new alternative energy source. 

Fracking in the News (Part 1)

An article came out in October 2015 with yet another health impact of hydraulic fracturing. Studies previously linked it to increasedinfant mortality and low birth weights but now Casey et al. (2015)  has suggested that fracking can cause premature births in Pennsylvania. The study found that 40% of expecting mothers living in active fracking zones are likely to give birth prematurely and 30% are more likely to have a high-risk pregnancy (excessive weight gain, high blood pressure etc.). Although the study does not state any causal explanations why living near a fracking site could lead to these maternal problems but it is possible that increased noise and traffic to poor air quality can all increase maternal stress which is known to have adverse effects on unborn babies.

There has been claim recently that women don’t agree with fracking because they ‘don’t understand’ it. Are you fracking kidding me? Apparently we ‘lack scientific understanding’ according to Averil Macdonald, the chairwoman of UK Onshore Oil and Gas. She states that women are more likely to make decisions based on ‘gut feeling’ and ‘emotional fears’ instead of facts. The article argued that explaining to women that fracking is safe still wouldn’t change their minds but I don’t understand this point because fracking has not yet be proven to be safe by the DECC, hence no active fracking sites in the UK yet. This statement is offensive and sexist to say the least and it is safe to say that the science behind fracking is well understand. Besides the basics needed to make a decision are not hard to understand, we don’t need to know all the chemistry and physics behind the method to be able to form an opinion. 

Maybe we could turn this around on men and argue that it proves women are more sensible and take into account all aspects including impacts rather than just seeing economic benefits and agreeing like men who are easily persuaded by ‘facts’.

A recent article published by Audubon highlighting another ecological impact of fracking, this time its effecting birds in north-west North Dakota. An increase in fracking wells has converted much of the landscape from grass to gravel causing birds to leave the area. They are not only avoiding the infrastructure sites themselves but also surrounding areas. Bird density has dropped by 33% within 800 feet of fracking sites in the region with some birds staying as far as 1800 feet away. It is thought to be due to too much dust and lack of food but it is still unclear what effects this will have on local ecology. 

Politics of Fracking

In this blog I am going to discuss the extremely complicated politics involved in fracking for natural gas. I do not know a lot about politics in general (it’s always seemed extremely dull to me) so please excuse me if I get anything wrong and feel free to correct me!

The politics involved in fracking make the topic more of a business decision rather than environmental, David Cameron has even been noted to describe it as ‘political not scientific’. Fracking has become a very controversial topic that nobody can seem to agree on and the politics gets even more complicated as it differs on global, national and regional scales. This is because the impacts and benefits of this alternative energy source vary with location. For example, some locations have reported earthquakes caused by fracking, others haven’t. Some locations have reported flammable tap water caused by fracking contaminating groundwater, others haven’t. Other locations have been home to fracking sites for years with no adverse health or environmental impacts. In terms of the UK some aspects of fracking are addressed by the European Union (such as water quality), some by the UK government (licensing and taxation), and some by local authorities (planning permissions) (Cairney et al.,2015). It is a collection of decisions made on multiple levels. In the US it acts in a similar way, federal, state and regional politics on fracking dramatically differ most often depending on public opinion. For example, fracking is now banned in New York State but is widespread and heavily supported in the neighbouring state of Pennsylvania.

Politics on fracking began in the mid-20^th century when the value of natural gas became apparent and policy makers made it illegal to ‘flare’ or ‘waste’ any natural gas extracted from subterranean sources as was often the case in oil wells (Davis, 2012).  It is from this point on that natural gas was considered a new cheaper and potentially less harmful energy source that could dramatically increase a countries economic/energy security and it had to be explored. For this to happen energy policies already in place had to be revisited and amended in order to allow exploration of shale gas reserves. Consumers drive this change and have made fracking permanent in the US due to the high demand for energy which shale gas meets efficiently and inexpensively. Natural gas now accounts for over ¼ of energy consumption in the US and this is expected to rise to ½ by 2035 (Davis, 2012) 

The UK political system has a well-known reputation for top-down policymaking and the government has made it very clear that they are going all out for shale gas, despite it being a very new concept here, in an attempt to dramatically escalate the countries energy security (Cairney et al., 2015). This seems to be the main goal as fracking has many economic benefits which are more relevant to policy makers than any environmental impacts. It is often described as a ‘tentative pro-fracking policy’ as the DECC has yet to make a firm decision on the economic viability of fracking in this country. Hence, the government giving Cuadrilla and other drilling companies’ permission to explore for shale gas as there is no commercial fracking of yet in the UK (Beebeejaun, 2013). At the moment the government is entitled to take 2/3 of the profits through taxes, but current talks are attempting to reduce this to 30% (Beebeejaun, 2013). It is likely that reducing this will allow the public to see that fracking in the UK is not just going to benefit the government and profits can then be spent on making the energy greener. 

Artists Against Fracking

Artists Against Fracking is an anti-fracking group founded by Yoko Ono and her son Sean Lennon in 2012. With over 200 members, including celebrities such as Lady Gaga, Robert de Niro, Paul McCartney, Adrian Grenier and Alec Baldwin, they have voiced their opposition towards fracking in many different ways from billboards to music videos in an attempt to keep fracking out of New York State. 

‘AAF is focusing on New York as a first step in a global effort’ - Yoko Ono

Groups like these and any public message by a celebrity is bound to have a large impact on opinion, people like Yoko Ono are role models and the general public tend to be a lot more likely to listen them rather than government officials. There is a certain trust that goes with being a celebrity and it can be used in the right ways to make a difference and protect the environment. 

Website: http://artistsagainstfracking.com/

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ArtistsAgainstFracking

Public Opinion

Although fracking has recently attracted a lot of media attention the majority of the public are still relatively uneducated on the topic (Boudet et al., 2014).  It is important to know how well understood the topic is before asking peoples opinion on it.

It is a concern that due to the internet and films such as ‘Gasland’ many people have been swayed against fracking as it has been badly perceived causing prevention of exploration, e.g. fracking is banned in France and Bulgaria despite large potential in these countries. Many recent public surveys have found a decline in the number of people supporting fracking and a rise in the number of people opposed to it. This could cause a problem for the government as they try to push fracking as an alternative to importing gas from Russia. A survey taken at the University of Nottingham (sample no. 3657) found that the number of people in favour of fracking in the UK has fallen to 49.8% while 31.4% are against it with the remainder undecided. However, public polls taken in Pennsylvania and Michigan, USA where fracking has been used for many years, found that the majority of people believe fracking to be important to their states economy (Ford, 2013). 

A survey taken by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) seen in the figure below found that only 24% of the population support fracking as an alternative energy source with over 50% having a neutral opinion. However, the UK Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) is arguing that 57% of people are in support (sample no. >4000) and the reason for the difference in these polls is the phrasing of the questions. The UKOOG gave people a ‘don’t know’ option rather than ‘neutral’ as uninformed participants are more likely to oppose if they are forced to choose a side.

Source.

Opinions on fracking are also related to the respondents involved in the survey. A survey conducted by The Guardian in 2013 found that women are much less in favour of fracking than men with only 34% compared to 55%.  Boudet et al. (2014) states that women, people who read newspapers more than once a week, people more familiar with the topic and people who associate it with environmental impacts are more likely to be against fracking while older people, people with a bachelor degree and people who associate it with positive economic outcome tend to support fracking.

The fracking industry in the UK is in rapid retreat due to increasing public opposition, the sudden switch from renewables back to fossil fuels has put the public in distress. It is confusing to understand why the government would be pushing hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas when just a few years ago they were making such a fuss to move away from fossil fuels and for everyone to reduce their individual emissions. What’s changed? Are fossil fuels not bad any more? Is it just because it’s cheaper? What are the benefits to us? The public need a reason behind this sudden switch otherwise they will be protest more than ever, the public will not support something they don’t or can’t understand. 

The Ban Is Spreading

Map showing distribution of natural gas in Europe and different countries position on extraction.  Source.

This map shows the distribution of known shale gas reserves across Europe as well as the countries position on the topic. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) France and Poland have the greatest potential for recoverable shale gas in Europe.   However, France is one of the 5 counties that have banned all fracking activity. The ban was put forward in 2011, President Sarkozy said it would remain forbidden until it is proven that it will not be harmful to the environment. Bulgaria followed this act in 2012 after a nationwide protest against Chevron coming in to evaluate the countries natural gas potential. Other countries that have banned fracking are the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic.

Fracking is allowed in the UK despite it being banned for over a year after the earthquake caused by a fracking site near Blackpool in 2011. It is being rapidly advanced since the government gave energy companies permission to explore for viable gas reserves but Scotland recently voted on a moratorium in January 2015 to allow full public consultation on the controversial technique.  Many see this as just killing time while they build up more evidence of health and environmental impacts before an outright ban can be put in place.

These acts against fracking are not restricted to Europe. In May 2012 the state of Vermont, USA became the first state to outlaw hydraulic fracturing and New York State (which unlike Vermont has significant gas reserves) followed and banned the practice in December 2014. Maryland also announced this year that it will be banning fracking until 2017 and many counties within different states have independently banned the activity.

In recent years bans on hydraulic fracturing are becoming a lot more common and many are due to public pressures. This proves that the general public can make a difference and your opinion matters, you just have to fight until it is heard. 

Doctor Who Tackles Fracking

I met Matt Smith when he came into the bar I work at in North London the other night. Note: if you ever meet him do not call him Doctor Who to his face he gets mad. Then this morning I saw an article about how the creators of Doctor Who want to do an episode that deals with hydraulic fracking. So I thought this was the perfect opportunity to brag about my celebrity encounters (I also met Kit Harington and Janice from Mean Girls last week) as well as discussing fracking. It was unclear what way they would portray fracking in the programme whether it be good or bad but any publicity is good publicity right? It is things like this that allow the topic to be pushed into the public eye and with more attention and understanding the industry is more likely to progress.

This also made me thing about protests and how they affect the industry. Obviously all protests are against fracking and aim to stop it happening but is it doing the opposite? Yes they are a nuisance but the media attention they bring to the topic will ultimately lead to people researching and building up their own knowledge and opinions. And let’s be honest, no one is going to listen to a crazy protester. The majority of the public will have a lot less extreme views and may even be more open minded to hear about the advantages of fracking.

Media attention on the topic has massively increased in the past few years making the public more aware of what is happening and what could happen in the future, I’m excited to see is this has positive or negative impacts. Or maybe Doctor Who will save us all from the horrors of fracking and we won’t have to worry about it any more.  

Fracking: Coming Soon to a Town Near You

It is no longer a question of whether or not we will use fracking in the UK but more of when and where. 1000 square miles of England are currently being opened up to 27 new fracking sites mainly in Yorkshire, the North-West and the East-Midlands as the government has given energy companies permission to explore for oil and gas reserves. The map below produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change shows just how much of the country is being reviewed for potential fracking sites compared to what is already licensed.

 Map of fracking exploration in the UK produced by DECC. Source. 

As I am from the North-West I am going to do a quick focus on potential fracking sites being reviewed in this region: 

• There have been appeals by Cuadrilla for 2 new sites in Lancashire as it is estimated that the shale gas reserves in Lancashire alone are worth up to £140billion. They are now focusing on the advancement of horizontal wells in the region to provide better data of recoverable shale gas.
•  IGas has one site under evaluation on Salford but this has been subject to a lot of protests. Mancunians can be very passionate.
• Dart Energy is involved in exploration for shale gas in Cheshire, the chief executive of the Australian company has said he “can’t wait to start drilling in Wayne Rooney’s backyard” but no specific drilling locations have yet been found.

However, fracking is set to be banned from 40% of the land being offered up to shale gas exploration after the Scottish government declared a moratorium on the fracking industry as a whole. An independent analysis by Greenpeace found that 45% of land being licensed for fracking in England were at least 50% covered by protected areas, only 3% had no protected areas at all. Ministers have now agreed to ban fracking activity on the surface in National Parks but have allowed energy companies to frack outside the park boundaries and drill horizontally underneath them.

Map showing how known shale gas reserves and areas up for exploration are interlocked with protected National Parks. Source.

So it is clear that there is going to be a lot of fracking in our future and a large portion of the public are going to be affected. But it is not all bas news, the DECC expects investments in the shale gas to reach £33 billion in the next few years and will provide 64,000 jobs in the oil, gas, construction, engineering and chemical sectors at the same time as providing a cost-efficient bridge to lower-carbon energy use. Maybe a fracking site near you isn't the worst thing. I personally think we should at least allow the exploration to happen so we know what we are dealing with instead of just outright denying fracking as a whole. 

Green Fracking

It is no secret that the 2005 Energy Policy Act provided the oil and gas industry with exemptions from many health provisions including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It is also alarming that groundwater pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing was not acknowledged by the US Environmental Protection Agency until as late as June 2015. However, since 2009 US congress brought in FRAC Act as a legislative proposal that states fracking as a federally regulated activity under the Safe Drinking Water Act. But is it possible to make fracking a greener source of energy? There are many mitigation strategies currently being tested in order to reduce the known environmental impacts of drilling for shale gas.

GasFrac has developed a way to frack without the use of water by using a gelled fluid containing propane. It retains the sand much better than water does meaning it’s possible to get the same amount of gas with only 1/8 the amount of liquid. Recycling used water or brine can also reduce the industries pressure on water resources. However, incentives for companies to use these strategies are reduced due to the incredibly low costs of freshwater.

There have recently been efforts to plug methane leaks as new equipment is being installed by the EPA in oil and gas wells to capture any gases that escape. This is because methane (the main component of natural gas) is the largest greenhouse gas contributor to climate change so this act hopes to make fracking more environmentally sustainable with fewer impacts. It is estimated by the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) that this could reduce methane emissions in the industry by up to 80%. There are also plans to convert natural gas into useable power as close to the fracking site as possible in order to reducetransport and therefore reduce leakage potential. 

However, not all solutions require such extreme technological advancements, it is possible to reduce methane emissions and leakage just by maintaining equipment already in use to avoid rotting and cracks etc. So small improvements can be made every day to make fracking a natural gas a greener and more sustainable source of energy. 

US vs UK

Fracking has a long history in the USA but is a relatively new concept in the UK (Jaspel and Nerlich, 2014). It is much less advanced and therefore, many of the problems that have occurred in the US are expected here although we are bettwe prepared for them. Increasing energy independence in the US has led to a large decrease in oil use and increase in fracking since the 1970’s – this is known as the Saudi America effect. The US now produces 1/3 the amount of natural gas as oil and according to the EIA (2014b) the amount of natural gas obtained in the US has tripled between 2009 and 2012. It’s estimated that they could be completely independent in oil and gas by 2035. 

It has been estimated that there are over 3800 trillion cubic metres of natural gas available for extraction in the UK. This has the potential to supply energy to the country for the next 470yrs (Stamford andAzapagic, 2014), but fracking may not be as well suited to the UK as it is to America. For example, population density is much higher in Britain, and Europe as a whole, meaning any impacts will affect a larger number of people here. However, shale is much lower down in the earth’s crust in the UK (Howarth et al., 2011) meaning that impacts such as ground water contamination and leakage of methane into our drinking water is a lot less likely.

There are 4 keys differences between fracking in the UK and Fracking in the US outlined by Greenpeace: 

•       Amount of gas – US reserves are much larger.
•       The UK is able to sell its gas easily due to pre-existing export infrastructure in the North Sea whereas the USA can only use it domestically.
•       Different economy – gas is sold much cheaper in the US.
•       Different geology makes the extraction process and costs extremely different. Shale is much lower in the UK making it less economically viable to extract.

The UK is trying to replicate the US gas boom due to it being so successful in solving energy and economic problems. However, the main aspects holding us back include planning permissions and most of all public resistance based on smaller, local impacts. 

Energy Security

I realised that I’ve talked a lot about energy security in my previous blogs and never properly discussed the meaning of it or its importance to the topic of fracking, so here's a short explanation. 

Energy security is defined by the International Energy Agency as the uninterrupted physical availability of energy at a price which is affordable, while respecting environmental concerns (IEA, 2010). This can be long-term based on economic and sustainable development or short-term based on supply and demand and reactions to sudden changes in energy policy. Ways in which energy security can be achieved varies between countries depending on domestic resources and economic status.  To put it in simple terms see the diagram below, that is all energy security is.

Source. 

Energy security is very important in regards to fracking.  In the UK the availability of shale gas will allow us to stop importing gas from Russia giving us more energy independence and even give us export opportunities, both of which will dramatically increase the countries energy security.

To see what the UK government is doing about energy security please visit https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/uk-energy-security  

The Good Side of Fracking

Contrary to popular belief it is not true that everything to do with our energy consumption is harmful to the environment. Although it is not possible right now to have a completely green economy there are still methods that are better than others. Fracking can therefore be considered a gateway resource to a lower carbon economy and increased energy security for the future.

Here are some advantages to choosing fracking in the UK:

• Fracking is one of the cheapest forms of energy.  It has the potential to significantly bring down energy prices as it is 1/5 the price of oil and 1/3 the price of solar power. This will not only benefit the consumer but will also have a positive effect on the economy.

Cost of different types of energy. Source. 

• Using shale gas as an energy source will help significantly reduce carbon emissions as well as other greenhouse gases (Royal Academy ofEngineering, 2012), this will create a bridge to a lower carbon society based on renewable resources such as solar and wind power.  However, variety of energy sources could still reduce CO₂ emissions, it doesn’t have to be all renewable as long as it is not all oil. Fracking is a valuable part of the energy mix.
• It will create thousands of local jobs. The government has estimated that the fracking industry could create over 64,000 jobs in the UK. 
• It will increase energy security (EERA, 2013) by making the UK more independent, our vast resource of natural gas will dramatically reduce dependency on foreign oil especially from Russia.
• It is considered a solution to peak oil.

For more information on the pros and cons of fracking please read this paper by Jackson et al. (2014) which outlines all the environmental costs and benefits of fracking for shale gas.  

Gasland

Gasland is an American documentary by Josh Fox made in 2010. It explores the impacts of fracking, particularly the effects of water contamination, when little was known or reported about it. The film has shaped public discourse on the topic and led to many anti-fracking movements.

Flammable Tap Water

Fracking impacts on freshwater use and contamination are one of its biggest disadvantages as an energy source.

1-8 million gallons of water is needed to frack a single well which puts extreme pressures on limited fresh water resources. The US is currently using 72 trillion gallons of water to frack its 500,000 active wells. This is particularly a problem right now in California where there is already a severe drought, the worst in over 500 years. Drilling for both natural gas and oil is thought to be increasing risks of earthquakes and water shortage in an area where these concerns are already prominent. 

There is also the issue of water contamination from fracking fluid. 6 US states have reported more than 1000 incidents of contamination from fracking and the leakage of methane into groundwater. Methane levels have been found to be 17 times higher in drinking water wells close to fracking sites compared to normal wells. It has also been found that up to 52% of the chemicals found in fracking fluid have the potential to cause serious sensory, neurological and respiratory health problems. In many areas this has made tap water undrinkable and there have even been reports of people being able to set their kitchen tap water alight due to gas contamination.  But not only do the chemicals used pollute ground and drinking water, around half of them are left in the ground indefinitely, only 10-25% is recovered and returns to the surface as concentrated brine (Loh et al., 2015). 

This website shows clearly the full process of how fracking for natural gas works and how it can lead to dangerous groundwater contamination: http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

So clearly there are a lot of problems with fracking as a new source of energy but can these impacts be controlled in the future? Mitigation policies will be discussed in my next few blogs along with advantages of fracking and public opinions. 

Impacts of Fracking

• Firstly, fracking sites can cause noise and dust pollution as well as traffic congestion which will greatly impact people living in the surrounding areas. This is particularly a problem in regions with high population densities such as Europe.
• Massive impacts on the natural environment from infrastructure development and fragmentation of the landscape causing ecological impacts. For example, of the 575 national wildlife refuges in the US 105 contain a total of 4406 oil and gas wells (Burton et al., 2014). 
• Although emissions are lower than coal and oil, greenhouse gases ARE EMITTED during extraction from drilling, fracturing and well completions. It is not clean energy and is highly pollutive. Shale gas is predominantly made up of methane which is a around 85 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide making it the most significant driver of climate change (Vinciguerra et al., 2015) making it potentially a more harmful source of energy at a time when we should be moving away from fossil fuels. 
• Fracking is not always economically viable to extract depending on how deep the shale gas is below the surface. 
• Natural gas is a non-renewable resource meaning it cannot be considered a long-term solution to the energy crisis. As seen in the diagram below natural gas production is expected to peak around 2025 before production will start to rapidly decline up to 8% per year until 2050.
  
   Global Natural Gas Production, 1965 to 2100 Source 
• Fracking has been known to induce seismicity as hydraulic injection can cause existing faults to be re-activated. It causes earthquakes. These induced earthquakes tend to hit a lot closer to the surface (around 2-3 miles deep) than natural quakes meaning potential damage on the surface can be a lot higher even if the magnitude is relatively low. 

QUICK CASE STUDY – one of the UK’s main fracking sites near Blackpool experienced a 2.3 magnitude earthquake in 2011 due to fluid loss into a permeable fault causing operations to be suspended for 2 months.

In my next blog I will continue looking at the impacts of fracking, particularly on freshwater use and contamination. 

What Is Fracking?

Fracking (or hydraulic fracturing) is the extraction of natural gas from within thin layers of shale in the earth’s crust. Here’s how it works:

•        Fracking fluid, made up of water, sand and over 600 chemicals, is injected at high pressures into a well around 3000m below the surface – depth is location dependent.
•        The pressurised mixture causes natural fissures and layers in the rock to crack.
•        Sand particles then hold these fissures open allowing natural gas to travel up to the surface.
•        Once extracted it is separated into dry gas for power generation/industrial uses and natural gas liquids for chemical feedstocks.
•       The fracking fluid is recovered and taken for reprocessing to be used again.

Cross section of a typical fracking sight. Source

Although fracking has only dominated headlines in the past couple of year’s techniques have been developing since the early 1900s. Fracking has grown in popularity recently due to the depletion of global oil and coal reserves. The graph below shows how we have moved from one resource to another as soon as it is depleted. Could natural gas be our new main energy source to replace oil?

The four eras of energy. Source

I found a very clear timeline of the history of fracking in the USA on Quora which gives details of how the process has evolved since first being established in Pennsylvania over 80 years ago. However, in the UK fracking is a lot newer and its potential as a new energy source is still be questioned. Fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal are the largest sources of energy in the EU and are predicted to dominate the European energy mix until at least 2030 (EERA, 2013).