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.