My Opinion

I have just realised that my blog is actually called ‘A Fracking Good Idea’ and the majority of my posts have been very negative about the topic. So I think it’s finally time that I let you all know my own personal opinion, in case you hadn't already guessed.

When I first started this blog I was already relatively well informed on the topic of fracking and its positives and negatives, however, from writing each post I have learnt something new (and I hope you have too). Not only have I been surprised by the amount of puns used within the fracking debate but also the secrets, dirty politics and overall negative vibe around the topic. I used to be supportive of fracking (hence the title of the blog) as a gateway resource to a cleaner economy while increasing economic and energy security at the same time but since doing so much research it has become clear to me that, in my personal opinion, the negatives far outweigh the positives. I know that we still don’t know how safe fracking will be in the UK so I’m not making any firm decisions just yet but if it is similar to what has been happening over in the US I do not want it near me, even if it will lower energy prices. I recently came across a term in Tim Flannery's new book 'Atmosphere of Hope' where he refers to shale gas as 'fossil fuel-lite' which is perfect for indicating that it is not as bad but still a fossil fuel at the end of the day. I think money would be better put into developing renewable energy rather than wasting time trying to stick with fossil fuels, it's almost as if fracking is a last hurrah for our relationship with fossil fuels before we finally let them go and move on. Shale gas still has the potential to get us into a lower carbon, more efficient and self-sustaining economy but is it worth the risk or can future advancements reduce these risks? What shale we do? (Final pun)

Overall, I now think the move to natural gas may actually be a fracking bad idea. 

Since this is likely going to be my last blog I think I'll leave you all with a quote from Barack Obama when he was on Bear Goes Wild (best episode ever). He compared climate change to driving a car towards a cliff. 'You don't have to screech to a halt at the last second you can just keep tapping at the breaks. This is how we need to deal with climate change and the transition away from fossil fuels in order to reduce carbon emissions.'

This analogy is perfect for saying that fracking may well be an essential gateway resource to a lower carbon economy. It is definitely not the sole solution and shouldn't be relied upon in the long-term but it can help on our path to a renewable world. 

Underground Coal Gasification

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a process by which coal that is unable to be mined for economic and technological reasons can be converted to a product gas while still in the ground (van der Riet, 2008). The coal is ignited in situ and oxidants are injected into the seam at high pressure to convert inaccessible coal into a gas that can be easily extracted through drilling technology similar to that used for fracking. The main gaseous products that come from this process include methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen (Cui, 2014) that can then be used to produce power and chemical/liquid fuels.

UCG offers an opportunity to extract energy from coal reserves while avoiding many of the health and environmental impacts involved in mining (Greg and Edgar, 1978). It eliminates the dangers that go with conventional mining and has minimal above ground disturbances while producing low-cost energy, it also reduces the need to transport and expose of ash. However, this is a developing industry so there are many disadvantages and problems with method and tests. Many of the major trials have be conducted in the USA, Russia, China and Europe but site criteria has not yet been established (Coach, 2009). Despite 50 years of development there are still only 3 active UCG projects in the world (see map below). There are still many concerns with groundwater contamination and ground subsidence but the Chinchilla project in Australia reported neither of these impacts just 20,000 tonnes of cheap coal (Sury et al., 2004). The British Geological Survey has estimated that there could be 17 billion tonnes of coal eligible for UCG in the UK which has the potential to sustain our energy needs for 289 years.

Source.

There has been a lot of public opposition towards UCG due to its similarity to fracking but with a moreharmful resource. It has been known to cause a lot of the same environmental impacts while still emitting greenhouse gases  and the only advantage is its low cost.

For more detailed information on UCG see Bahl et al. (2014). 

Re-Fracking

Since my last blog was about the future of fracking I felt it was very relevant to follow with re-fracking as many believe this could dramatically influence what happens in the industry in the next few years.

Typically a fracking well only extracts 12% of the oil or gas available meaning almost 90% is left in the ground. The process of re-fracking takes away the need to drill and frack a new well, instead the energy company can simply re-frack the same well at 25% of the cost to untap the trapped oil and gas left behind from the first attempt. With better knowledge, technology and equipment the costs and potential of this process are set to largely improve in the next few years.

One of the first companies to try this technique is Marathon Oil Corp (MOC) in 2014. They have stated that the re-fracked wells have outperformed all expectations thus far and so many other energy companies are now attempting to follow in their footsteps.

 Source.

US shale oil production is set to peak in 2020 but re-fracking could rejuvenate the industry and increase the yield of old wells. This is now common enough in the US to warrant a nickname – if a well is fracked five times it is called a “cinco de fraco.” It is estimated that there are around 100,000 wells that could be re-stimulated and that 3000 will be re-fracked in the US alone within the next 2 years.

This process is still in the early stages however, so there are many unknown risks associated with it. For example, it is unclear whether or not re-fracking will cause damage to the well allowing gas to escape which could potentially cause increased groundwater pollution.