What the Frack?

The so-called 'dash for gas' has a lot of people trembling, and not just because of links to minor earthquakes on the Fylde Coast.  But what's it really all about?  Here, we try to paint a balanced picture.

Rising up out of the surrounding flat landscape in Banks near Southport, a large blue and white structure can be seen from miles around.

It's a drilling rig, operated by Cuadrilla Resources, and is currently busy boring a deep hole to find buried shale, millions of years old, in which large reserves of 'shale gas' are thought to be held.

Cuadrilla have also been drilling at test sites elsewhere in Lancashire where the largest deposits of Bowland Shale are found.

Extracting shale gas is a controversial business.  Although it's been done elsewhere in the world on a large scale, here in the UK it is new and different - which, like many things, means some people are naturally fearful of it.  It doesn't exactly have the best reputation either, with reports of groundwater pollution in the US where drilling for shale gas is increasingly commonplace.

In the UK, opposition to the practice seems to stem from two main concerns: (1) that it will increase the UKs dependency on non-renewable fossil fuels for longer, thus preventing efforts to reduce climate change impacts; and (2) the potential negative impacts that can result from the process of extracting the shale gas, Hydraulic Fracturing.

Known more commonly as 'fracking', this involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and non-hazardous friction-reducing chemicals into the shale at high pressure.  This fluid forces open the tiny fractures in the shale and props them open, allowing the trapped gas to escape and be harvested at the surface. 

Opposition by campaign groups has centred mostly on concerns over fracking, citing fears that it can cause minor earthquakes and that the chemicals used could contaminate drinking water supplies. 

Tremors detected on the Fylde Coast earlier this year have now been attributed to Cuadrilla's fracking activities, and so it seems there is some evidence to support the anti-fracking movement's belief that the process is, at best, disruptive.  In an independent report commissioned by Cuadrilla, the British Geological Survey (BGS) concluded that the earthquakes experienced so far were the result of a 'perfect storm' that is unlikely to be encountered again, and that any future tremors associated with fracking are unlikely to exceed magnitude 3 on the Richter scale and so should not cause any damage to property or harm to health.

There is no evidence to date that fracking activities or extraction of shale gas has led to the contamination of underground water supplies in the UK.  Although there is clearly a risk of this, the engineering of the well shafts and tight monitoring regime, coupled with close supervision by the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive (HSE), appears to suggest that the likelihood of such an occurence has been minimised to as great an extent possible, meaning the risk of a pollution incident is relatively low.  Although it is common for campaign groups to describe the fracking fluids as a 'toxic cocktail', in reality, the composition is for the most part water with sand added and non-hazardous polymers that reduce friction as the fluid is injected into the shale - polymers that are commonly used in drinking water treatment and the manufacture of soft contact lenses.

So, is it safe and should it continue?

In truth, the answer is that nobody really knows right now.  The work undertaken so far by Cuadrilla is exploratory and experimental in its very nature, and without more of it, we won't be able to understand and then manage its impacts properly.  Those that call for it to be banned, with a lack of scientific evidence to support their case, may be doing so prematurely.

It clearly isn't without some risk.   

Will it, as some claim, reduce investor appetite for renewable energy developments such as wind, hydro and solar power by making us more reliant on fossil fuels?

Again, it's hard to predict with any certainty.  However, what is clear is that it offers the UK a window of perhaps fifty years in which the move away from 'dirty' coal-fired powerstations can be accelerated whilst the development of renewable energy sources catches up.  It will also improve energy security, rendering us less dependent on other nation states for our energy needs. 

It could also help to bring down the soaring costs of household energy bills. 

When it comes to combatting climate change and getting to grips with managing our energy needs, there is no single solution or magic bullet: renewables, despite some claims to the contrary, are unlikely to ever satisfy 100% of our demand, which means the shortfall has to be picked-up somewhere else - probably with a blend of new nuclear power, waste-to-energy, and clean-burning gas powerstations, which Cuadrilla could help to make a reality if it can extract shale gas safely and cost-effectively.

What we certainly need is a more robust approach to curbing demand in the first place.  In addition to insulating homes, more should be done to limit our demand for energy: for instance, banning electrical and electronic equipment with a standby facility rather than an on/off switch, phasing-out appliances and eventually banning any that are not A-rated for energy consumption, with a similar energy-rating system applied to increasingly power-hungry gadgets and devices.  

If you'd like to know more about fracking and shale gas exploration, you might find these links of interest:

ENDSReport Blog; Environment Agency; Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).  If you're on Twitter, try searching #fracking.

Does your business have a high energy demand?  Would you like help reducing it in order to lower your costs?  We may be able to help - call us to find out more on 0845 123 2544.