Scare stories about the dangers of fracking have often grabbed the headlines. Rod Thonger argues that fracking can be carried out safely, as long as the risks are assessed and it is strictly supervised.
Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a technique that is used to open up shale rock, thousands of metres below the ground surface, for the purpose of releasing trapped gas and oil. The gas is predominantly methane, much the same as produced in the North Sea; the types of oil vary depending on their history.
In a global context, the USA and Canada are the only countries so far with significant production. In Europe, decisions on fracking appear to be more politically motivated, based on the strength of feeling of the electorate rather than the threats and benefits to the state.
For example, France rejects fracking but embraces nuclear; Germany rejects nuclear but is leaving itself wriggle room on future development of fracked wells. In fact, fracking of wells has been a standard procedure for stimulating wells in countries for over 50 years and these continue to produce gas.
The UK, the USA (most states), Australia, China, Russia, Poland, Argentina and South Africa are among many countries determined to go ahead, or are already ahead, with both fracking and nuclear. Interestingly, considering the concerns about poisoning of water tables, fracking techniques have been used in water wells in the USA, Australia and South Africa.
The primary scientific references in the UK for a review of the issues involved are found foremost in the report Shale Gas Extraction in the UK, a Review of Hydraulic Fracturing, written by the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012 and jointly presented with the Royal Society. Their work is supported by the British Geological Society, which has field data and records going back to 1835. These organisations have an enormous amount of knowledge and experience and are respected worldwide.
They have reported on the techniques and the identified hazards, perceived and real, and their conclusions are that fracking can be carried out safely if the risks are assessed, the rules are obeyed and there is robust supervision. No risk management specialist would argue with that.
The hazards most commonly discussed tend to overlap between environment, health and safety. It is worth noting that the actual hazards identified arise in all wells drilled, they are not specific to fracking, though the potential effects need to be examined. There is not enough space here to discuss this in any depth but they can be summarised as follows:
Companies are required to prepare plans to handle these before any licenses to drill, let alone to frack, are issued. While the specific matters of applying for and drilling a well are covered by national legislation, planning permission must also be sought from the local county council (the Mineral Planning Authority), which consults the various councils within the county and reaches a decision, which must also bear the national interest in mind.
Councils have been in the news in West Sussex, Derbyshire and Lancashire for turning down applications, primarily on the grounds of traffic disruption and noise. Exploration companies are required to follow a process of 15 separate steps through various bodies.
We are fortunate in the UK because we possess not only the expertise and experience of professional bodies but also a government infrastructure with long experience of legislating for and regulating oil and gas activities.
The Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) legislates, HSE regulates health and safety and the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs handles environmental issues. Each produces reports on the current state of the industry, organises consultations and produces position papers, which you can find on the respective websites.
This is a complex subject, with technical reports competing for space with scare stories and routine rubbishing of the other side’s point of view, but as part of the energy mix, the chances are that fracking will go ahead.
Rod Thonger is chair of the IOSH South Downs Branch
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am sorry to be so negative, but really this report is full of misleading information, not to mention untruths.
Let’s take an example of a false statement. The UK does not import 15% of imported gas from Russia. This is totally unsubstantiable. In reality the UK imports probably net zero Russian gas.
n 2012 imports of gas accounted for 47% of supply. The majority of the imported gas, 55%, came from Norway.
Imports of LNG, from a variety of sources, eg Qatar, Australia, Algeria, and also USA, from where we expect to import significantly more in the near future accounted for a further 28% of imports.
The remainder came from Europe via the Netherlands and Belgium. 17% of imports.
If we assume that a quarter of the European supply comes from Russia, “Russian gas” imports therefore account for around 4% of our gas imports, and around 2% of our gas demand.
This is hardly a proportion making us as dependent on Russian gas as the energy security scaremongers would have us believe. Add to this the fact that in 2012 we EXPORTED gas to continental Europe and to Ireland an amount equal to 24% of our imports and MORE THAN our imports from Europe, and it becomes very hard to see how we are in any way dependent on Russian gas. The claim that we are in thrall to Russia is scaremongering.
Moving on to a couple more issues, there is now a common acceptance that fracking for shale gas is unlikely to have significant impact on consumer bills, if any, whether we are talking household consumers or industrial.
The state of regulation is in total disarray, with the government rejecting the arguments from all sides for a new combined shale gas regulatory body to replace the current mix of DECC/HSE/EA. which the industry itself accepts is not workable.
Employment estimates have come from industry sources, with most being generated through Cuadrilla funding. Other reports on impact on rural communities have been perceived as damaging and censored by the government.
There are indeed many issues with regard to well integrity which are specific to fracking, as the government has now defined it in the Infrastructure Act.
As the article says, this is a complicated subject. But to trivialise the issues in this one-sided manner as the writer of this article has done does nobody any favours.
Alan – thanks for your comments.
Your main point is about security of supply, primarily reliance on Russian gas. Various interpretations can be put on pronouncements by all parties in this debate but I offer this story as a start:
“Britain to import Russian gas under 2012 deal as tensions mount” from Reuters. The main point of this story was confirmed to me by Centrica last week. http://tinyurl.com/pyko6ak Also to confuse the situation, contracts with Gazprom may not be filled from Russia but other sources. I suggest that that still leaves the supply open to risk.
In 2013, nearly 60% of imported gas came from Norway. 18% came from Qatar. I suggest this reliance is an unwarranted risk when we are apparently sitting on the enormous potential in UK. Also note also that Russia supplied 41% of our coal.
Moving onto consumer bills – I think all of us would look doubtfully at that claim, by any government! We’re in the middle of an election, I’m sure we’re all aware that politicians don’t necessarily mean what they appear to say. (Also see gas supply above).
The Infrastructure Act dealt with trespass and drilling within certain areas. Well integrity has not been identified as an issue though it has been considered, even compared favourably with coal mines for example. the bill was passed by a significant majority in Parliament. I’m sure you will be aware that there are around 29 producing oil and gas fields comprising 250+ wells in the UK and they steadily contribute to our energy needs without problems (DECC website).
Best wishes/Rod Thonger
Yes fracking can be done safely – but it won’t be!
TTIP will ensure a race to the bottom of standards.
TTIP will ensure legislation and enforcement is weakened.
The tax payer will foot the bill and suffer the dreadful legacy the corporations leave behind.
The big corporations will create shadow companies, rape the asset, claim bankruptcy, walk away – leave the tax payer to pick up the cost – fact – the exact same corporations are doing this already in the USA.
Why would they do anything different here?
Dear Vince. Thanks for your note. Interesting point about TTIP (I presume you mean Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the US and EU).
Taking your point
“fact –” the exact same corporations are doing this already in the USA. Why would they do anything different here?”
a lot of the fear of fracking has been generated by stories from the US which do not apply to the UK for reasons of culture, geology, techniques, environment and legislation though we ought to be aware of the issues raised.
You assume TIP can only be bad in terms of standards. I don’t know. I would expect our legislation to provide the protection we need.
Regards/Rod Thonger