fracking good sense, or nonsense? you decide.
SPECIAL REPORT
Fracking
2050 editor, Joe Swain, gets to grips with the whole fracking debate. Is fracked gas like normal gas? Is gas part of the Master Plan? Who exactly should we be rooting for here?
Global shale gas deposits A map of the world depicting where shale gas resources currently lie (image courtesy of: opsur.org)
I
n environmental and carbon reduction quarters there is a word much muted these days, and that word is fracking. Ignoring for now its obvious literary attributes, it is a word which seems to provoke much emotion. To understand the process of fracking is relatively easy, but to understand why it is such an emotive issue, is to appreciate the argument that surrounds it. It would appear that there are essentially 3 positions: 1. That there is no such thing as man-made global warming and that all fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas (in whatever environment it might be found) are a gift from our ancestors and should be used up with glee until they are all gone, in somewhere between 30 and 300 years time, depending upon whose estimates you believe. And that all methods of extraction, including fracking, are therefore acceptable. That necessity is the mother of invention and humankind will no doubt quickly invent some sort of replacement fuel when the time comes. 2. That gas, both that extracted using conventional methods and that which has been extracted
using methods such as hydraulic fracking, emits only half as much greenhouse gas when it is burnt than the other main fossil fuels, coal and oil. That fracked gas should, like conventional gas, be considered a vlauable ‘transition’ fuel as we simultaneously build up our renewable energy capacity. A ‘time buyer’ if you like, and one which has a legitimate place in our overall energy mix in the short to medium term. 3. That gas which has been extracted using methods which include a high level of high pressure fracking does not qualify for the same ‘50%’ cleaner tag as other forms of gas. That when you take all that extra energy and resources into account, gas which has been intensively fracked from shale stone, is, by virtue of all that extra effort, actually ‘dirtier’ than coal and oil. Not to mention the link to earthquakes and the risk posed to drinking water supplies. To save time, we’re just going to ignore position 1, mainly because it’s silly. The second position is far more interesting because it certainly seems to be accepted in most scientific quarters that gas, once retrieved, burns 50% more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It follows therefore that any switch to gas from the other fossil fuels should result in a reciprocal 50% saving
Controversial top: It is generally accepted that conventional gas emissions are 50% less harmful than other fossil fuels. middle: A fracking rig in Wyoming (image courtesy of peakwater.org). bottom: There are concerns that fracking contaminates drinking water supplies often culminating in public protest.
It certainly seems to be accepted in most scientific quarters that gas, once retrieved, burns 50% more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It follows therefore that any switch to gas from the other fossil fuels should result in a reciprocal 50% saving in emissions each time.
Fracking in emissions each time. An enthusiastic logic which has heralded the much talked about ‘dash for gas’ in recent months. It is a position of perceived compromise and as such, one which instantly attracts the attention of governments searching for common ground between their carbon reduction targets and their need to court big business for the sake of economic prosperity. But it has to be said that the transition position, quite apart from sounding like a bit part character in the Rocky Horror Show, does rather rely on 2 quite important assumptions. That gas is indeed part of the master plan, and that all gases, however extracted, are equal. Perhaps the master plan (again assuming there is one?) concurs that switching lanes for a while will buy us the time we need to build up our renewable energy infrastructures, and then, at the last moment, to jump from the saddles of our tiring gas-steeds into the saving embrace of a brand new clean tech energy future. All in time to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees. Perhaps somebody could just quickly scurry off to the headmaster’s office to check that. And then of course there’s the whole question as to whether shale gas, once you’ve included the allegedly higher than average fracking energy it requires to extract it, and other associated risks, is indeed the ‘equal’ of ‘conventional’ gas.
Which is where our final position comes in. The people in this camp seem to be opposed to fracking for 3 main reasons: a) The fracking process required to retrieve shale gas involves pumping millions of gallons of water and unquantified and often unidentified chemicals into the ground below where people live. With the obvious risk of drinking water contamination and runoff pollution. b) It has been generally agreed that the fracking process causes earthquakes and that this is probably a bad thing. Apparently, despite the fact that shale gas requires so much more than other sources of gas, fracking has only caused minor earthquakes so far, thank goodness. And our governments have assured us that tremors of that size are no cause for alarm. Just a bit of a rumbly tummy, nothing to worry about. c) Gas isn’t actually that big a part of the overall master plan anyway, and we shouldn’t really let it distract us from pressing on with the very real challenge of manufacturing and installing a complete global clean energy system. And sharpish. That to proverbially scrape the barrel for more hard-to-getat gas in the meantime, would be to distract us from that greater goal. What makes the debate about the relative merits of fracking so expensively emotive it would seem, is that it is not one of your straightforward ‘oil v green’ confrontations, but more of an internal struggle over tactics.
It has been generally agreed that the fracking process causes earthquakes and that this is probably a bad thing.
What is fracking? Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing and refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high pressure mixture. Wells are sunk deep into the ground and then once they reach gas-rich shale rock layers, the drill heads turn and run parallel to the surface. Much like a desert plant sinking its roots deep into the ground and then shooting them out to the sides once it encounters moist ground. Water mixed with various chemicals is then pumped down the shaft at extremely high pressure which in turn forces the natural fissures in the rock to open up and release the gas within it, which then makes its way back to the main shaft. The first hydraulic fracturing was performed in 1947, at the Hugoton gas fields of southwestern Kansas, in limestone deposits by Halliburton. A high-pressure fracturing process uses between 6 and 11 million liters of water per well. “An independent geological report has found that it is “highly probable” a controversial technique to extract gas, known as fracking, triggered two minor earthquakes on the Lancashire coast earlier this year.” (BBC) Much of the water used in fracking is collected from the well and processed, but there are concerns that potentially carcinogenic chemicals can sometimes escape and find their way into drinking water sources. Some American householders also claim that shale gas leaking into their drinking supply causes tap water to ignite. (See link to movie trailer for ‘Gasland’.) The industry vigorously denies that shale gas is unsafe and blames pollution incidents as examples of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique.
Drilling through the water table The fracking process has become far more sophisticated in recent years, but there are still concerns about its effects on the environment, particularly drinking water supplies (image courtesy of barryonenergy.com)
Fracking Assuming most right-minded people realize that the bigger picture here is to make that switch to renewable energy, there is obviously still a division among them as to the extent to which gas should be relied upon as our ‘transition’ fuel.
far enough below the water table in each area, there will be no risk of water contamination. (A view which led the UK government to recently recommend that fracking only be performed at a minimum depth of 600m. Supposedly about 500m below the water table.)
Those in favour of fracking will say: “It boosts overall worldwide gas supplies and can help to reduce market cost. Shale is not anticipated to supply a large proportion of Britain’s gas needs, but it is contributing to a worldwide flow of gas that has halved gas prices in the US domestic market, and led to a glut in world markets. It’s estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal. Exploration companies are also claiming there is a potential £70bn of reserves in rocks deep under south Wales.” (BBC summarising advantages of shale gas) Those in favour will also probably point out that the technology behind the process has become far more sophisticated since it was first used commercially in the 1950s. That as long as the water and chemicals are pumped into the shale bedrock
Some fracking proponents will also point out that fracking is and has been used in the process of extracting ‘conventional’ gas too, since the 1950s and that it isn’t as new as people are suggesting. And that minor earthquakes are a common occurrence in all mining situations, not just in the case of fracked shale gas. And perhaps point out that many projected low-carbon scenarios include gas as part of the overall mix. Maybe we should be concentrating more on perfecting techniques than on whole-scale banning? It’s easy to see why the debate is so grey. Albeit with a green background. And you can understand why it is important to get a ruling on this fairly quickly. It’s already led to a fairly big spat between the EU and Canada over the ‘fracked tar sand gas 26% dirtier than coal’ claim made by
What makes the debate about the relative merits of fracking so expensively emotive it would seem, is that it is not one of your straightforward ‘oil v green’ confrontations, but more of an internal struggle over tactics. .
The fracking process The fracking process often involves drilling a well through the water table and there is much debate as to whether this is something that can ever be achieved safely in the long term. The gas companies claim that if carried out properly, the process can be conducted safely and that methane leaks and the like are only caused by faulty workmanship. (Image courtesy of the Ground Water Protection Council.)
Fracking the former during an import classification wrangle recently. The EU saying that like shale gas, coal tar gas requires a large degree of high pressure fracking and that consumers should know that before being asked to buy it. And Canada, well, understandably if not forgivably, peeved by what it sees as goalpost changing. Just as it was beginning to reap the benefits of sitting on top of the world’s largest coal tar deposits, and with it, the second largest energy resource left in the world after Saudi Arabia’s oil. But that’s another story (see news archive). The hub of the issue it seems, is whether fracked shale gas is, or is not, as clean as ‘conventional gas.
Media interest top: Time magazine recently ran an article about the potential of shale gas for the US and how it could help in the search for energy independence. bottom: The documentary style film ‘Gasland’ shows footage of drinking water so contaminated by methane released in the fracking process, that it was possible to ignire it. The film’s claims have been rebutted by the industry but continue to cause discussion at the highest levels.
Our unusual relationship with gas is reminiscent perhaps of one of those Great Escape type war films. The goodies are just about to be discovered at the train station all dressed up in their civilian suits made out of Marmite pots. And then just when you think the game is surely up, one of the enemy, a kindly old guard who remembers the good old days, silently lets them through without raising the alarm. You end up feeling sorry for the old boy, but at the same time remembering which side he was on as you scurry away to higher ground in time to fly off to safety in a glider made of jam. In other words, kindly old gas probably does have a role to play between now and 2050, but we probably have to accept that it is a diminishing role and one that can only include gas which can be safely and cleanly harvested. And therefore actually warrants the ‘50% cleaner than other fossil fuels’ claim. If high pressure fracking for shale gas ends up doing more harm then good, then the point of ‘dashing’ for it diminishes somewhat.
It is reminiscent perhaps of one of those Great Escape type war films, where the goodies are just about to be discovered at the train station all dressed up in their civilian suits made out of Marmite pots.