Viewpoint
The IMechE’s Dr Tim Fox explains why we must press ahead with UK shale gas exploration – and ensure the public knows why.
Shale gas and the engineering term hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) have proved controversial since the moment they became part of the UK energy debate. Now, with three months to go until the general election, they’re creating genuine political divides.
Scotland has already blocked all planned fracking operations for the foreseeable future. And across the UK people remain deeply unsure about the technologies involved, with deep-rooted concerns over the chemicals used, the potential for drinking water to be contaminated, the possibility of earth tremors and the damage that might be caused to the local environment.
With oil prices still at the lowest level seen for sometime and leading politicians calling for a moratorium on shale gas activity across the whole of the UK, some commentators are now asking whether we should abandon this potential energy source altogether – an approach favoured by some nervous MPs faced with fracking in their constituencies.
This, however, would be an entirely retrograde move for the UK – it is absolutely imperative for our future energy needs that drilling companies are allowed to move forward with exploration.
UK shale gas remains many years away – if it is to happen at all – yet the North Sea reserves that we rely on to heat the vast majority of our homes and businesses are depleting rapidly. To help make sensible decisions and plan for an energy secure future it is important that we allow exploratory drilling in shale deposits to find out exactly what gas reserves we may really have in the UK. Shale gas will not be a silver bullet, and it is important Government does not promote it as such. It is unlikely to ever impact greatly on energy prices in the UK, but it could present us with a useful additional option to help avoid a total dependence on gas imported from overseas.
It could also provide some long-term economic benefits to our country, including much needed jobs in areas of economic deprivation and potentially lead to export business based on the engineering skills and knowledge we develop.
We engineers have an increasingly vital role to play if we’re to help the public understand the reasons for exploration and how it can be carried out with minimum risk. A poll last year by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers found that 47 per cent of people would not be happy for a gas well site using fracking to open within 10 miles of their home, compared to just 14 per cent who said they would be happy.
Additionally only 30 per cent of people have a good understanding of what fracking is, compared with 40 per cent who said they had ‘some’ understanding and 30 per cent who said they had little or no understanding.
For shale gas to become an accepted energy source in the UK, engineers need to demonstrate how we’re making these technologies safe to use, and why many public fears are misguided. We know that shale gas exploration can be done without undue environmental or health risks, but this information is not getting through, and we need to prioritise robust technical evidence over scaremongering and conjecture.
This month the Institution is hosting its annual Engineers’ Summit for UK Shale Gas, where experts from around the world will share best practice on the methods and processes needed to safely and effectively carry out shale gas activity in the UK. One aim of the Summit is to help engineers communicate their knowledge of best practice more effectively with the public.
Whether people like it or not, given the almost total dependence of the UK on gas for heating, it is a matter of some urgency that we find ways to be less reliant on overseas gas markets and plan for energy secure heat provision. And while we need to be investing in long-term renewable energy infrastructure and other non-fossil fuel based solutions, shale gas could play a useful role in helping meet our energy needs in the transition. The problem is, if we don’t do some exploratory drilling we won’t know.
Dr Tim Fox is head of energy and environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
I am happy that we as Engineers understand how to make and run a safe fracking operation. I also see that the general public do not understand the controls in place to manage the risks.
I am not happy about the general drive to extract and burn every last bit of fossil fuel, whether it be oil, gas, coal, or wood.
I would prefer for us to put our efforts into using the energy we have wisely and efficiently; to develop sustainable energy sources; and to think what we may need in the next millenium.
The fossil fuels we have are also valuable chemical feedstocks and precursors for structural materials, they on the whole are a dense energy source and so should limit their use to where the energy density gives us most benefit.
If we do not look after what we have and manage it well, there will be a scramble for the last bits of energy that is likely to generate a bigger world crisis that the ones we have today.
An excellent clearly thought out and presented piece about one part of our energy conundrum. It is a good job that the Engineer carries on presenting the essential arguments, and great that Dr Fox has put his head above the parapet too. But how do we get the common press to consider reality when they can get headline-grabbing Armagedon predictions from large numbers of “scientists”.
If Dr.Fox and BP are correct in their pessimistic forecasts of when shale will be exploited the UK …i.e many years away… the UK will have missed the boat and ceased to be an industrial nation.
Those of us involved with the energy industry are trying to get our voices heard as Dr. Fox suggests, but most newspapers and even most engineering journals see all engineering matters as causing pollution and having suspect business motives.
I am reminded of the solution to a problem that affected all Eastern nations in former-Medieval- times. Communication viapPicture based languages.
The Korean Emperor wished to give his country an advantage over Japan and China. He gathered all the academics and educated sages (and surely our meja believe themselves to be both of those things -at least when the stupid S*ds think they are suitable to jeer, sneer, and smear the rest of us, when telling us what to do) into a room in the palace and locked the door. “You are not coming out until you have devised a new simple language. It took a week! Korean has 26 characters to this day. Koreans have always been hated by the other Asian nations because they were the cleverest of the lot!
Surely ‘we’ could do the same but in reverse: gather all the meja (there are so many of the bas**rds that Wembley Stadium would probably be necessary) and not let them out until they had assimilated the basics of simple science, engineering, technology, economics, social awareness, —the list is endless: subjects that they pontificate upon, but about which they clearly know little or nothing. I would be happy to be the gate keeper.
Mike B
Before engineers can persuade people to live with “fracking”, they have to deal with their own image problems. They can do this by “coming out” on issues that are not controversial. In that way they will counter accusations that everything they say is special pleading.
Engineers are generally less capable of “going public” than many scientists, which is why the media is full of astronomy, black holes and daily accounts of wonder cures, few of which get anywhere.
On fracking, the first line of attack should be that there is little new in the underlying engineering of shale recovery. Point out that the technologies brought us the North Sea oil that slowed the UK’s industrial decline, until politicians squandered it in the mistaken belief that we could rely on a wunch of bankers to guarantee our prosperity.
And don’t stick your heads in the sand when the antis hold up bad practices in America as a good reason for not using the technology. For once point out that the system of control and regulation there is pitiful.
In other words, flesh out Tim Fox’s excellent general points and come out fighting.
Excellent. But first, we need one working demonstration plant in a remote or low populated area that can built up and provide the evidence that a safe non-contaminating plant/well head can (or cannot) be operated in UK (within UK regulatory frameworks). Central Lancashire was not a good choice of site to begin exploration, if has fed the fear mongers.
Hi. I commented on this article. Please can you confirm why it has not been posted.
Many thanks
Any poll that asks about any industry to be built anywhere near your home would of course be negative because people are natural nimbies; scared of any change but especially of industrial pollution. If you added questions like these:
1. Are you worried about an explosive gas being piped into your home?
2. Would you be happy to live without a gas supply to your home?
3. Are you happy for the gas price to double in order to have a greener energy supply.
Then it would far be more informative. The first question reminds them that they accept huge risks daily because of the benefits gas brings. The second question reminds them that without shale gas we might just run short of gas and that would be the real problem they have to worry about. While the third question brings home the reality of green energy. Do most folk even know if their water comes from the water table or from a reservoir? I doubt it!
Is this the start of the IMechE finally taking it’s own head out of the sand and realising that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
My engineering qualifications pale into insignificance compared to those on this thread, but they do mean that I work on evidence gained over the last six years from sources around the world, and the facts are in contradiction to the promises.
Are the environmental costs of shale hydrocarbons a price worth paying? It is not in my opinion or in many others opinion also, and those others include highly qualified engineers. Being opposed to a technology does not make one a ‘nimby’ James, that is patronising, nor are we “Stupid S*ods” Mike, that comment should be beneath you.
The website I have made is factual and evidence-based; perhaps you would do me the honour of reading it with an open mind. Thank-you.
http://frackingfact.blogspot.co.uk
Rev Doodes
For someone so concerned with the application of words you should be more careful what you call a ‘fact’. On the first page of your site there is a factual mistake on almost every paragraph. What you like to call facts are merely a collection of long-discredited myths and baseless opinions. Bearing in mind your occupation I guess you are no stranger to fear-mongering based on myth but don’t try peeing on our shoes and tell us it is raining!
We will be highly reliant on gas for many years to come for heating and electricity so if you are happy for your flock to face the choice between starving and freezing then carry on spreading disinformation. If however you ever bother to read both sides of the argument you might accept that risk is a fact of life and that to avoid risk you have to avoid living. Everything is about benefits versus risks and in this case it is abundantly evident that the benefits are vast and the risks are few. By contrast the risk of running out of energy are imminent and scary and there are zero benefits: Life without energy is brutal and short!
Regardin the Rev’s comment, I agree with JamesG in principle. Having looked at the website referenced I can find only 3 concerns:
– fracking fluid chemicals’ toxicity
– fracking fluids making their ways in to the ground water
– fracking fluid returns
Each of these is either not applicable as British regulations and geology are significantly different to the US and others have simply being proven false or their effects massively overstated.
As for JameG’s ad hominem attack on the Rev; I find that unacceptable. Not only does he regurgitate in quite an uncritical way contemporary memes regarding religious belief as fact – an argument he threw at the Rev regarding fracking but he felt it perfectly acceptable to demean his character in the process.
His manner stands in stark contrast to that of Rev’s who contributed to the debate in a balanced and respectful tone. Moreover it stands in contradiction to the Engineering Council’s standards for ethical behaviour: “Treat all persons fairly and with respect.” And the profession’s ethical principles: “act honourably, responsibly and lawfully and uphold the
reputation, standing and dignity of the profession”
With regard to the engineering I’m with JamesG but with regard to conduct, I’m firmly in the Rev’s camp.
Nath
While I take your point, I submit that it is fair comment both to respond to ad hom. in the same manner and to point out that many folk merely pretend they occupy the moral high ground simply because they don’t wish to consider all of the moral implications of their actions.
And if you don’t want your highly personal and unscientific beliefs attacked then don’t wear them on your sleeve, front and centre, as if acting as a moral compass for the rest of us! Accidentally or not it is unwise and inappropriate.
For less biased info on fracking, myths and real facts there is a more appropriate site here:
http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/p/shale-gas-faq.html
As an engineer I see the risks involved. So it is my responsibility to educate the politicians that fracking isn’t just the next toy. As an engineer I also know about the importance of storage systems.
We need to build more on storage systems. Store heat inside the house so we don’t need to replace it all the time – insulate buildings against heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer.
Store methane from manure, sewage, landfills, mines so it doesn’t escape into the environment, but can be used to cook our meals.
We also have the sun shining so whenever possible we should use the sun to light our buildings.
1. Are you worried about an explosive gas being piped into your home?
2. Would you be happy to live without a gas supply to your home?
Yes, definitely. Look at gas explosions in the news. Not only the house is gone, but the neighbour’s house is damaged as well. Using induction cookers is not only cleaner but also less dangerous.
For heating we can use heatpumps, energy recovery from forced ventilation, insulation of the house, etc.
The temperature in most of England rarely drops below -5C. Everything above that a heatpump can cover easily.
Whilst I suspect that the safety issues with fracking can probably be controlled if enough effort is put into it, I am concerned that the fracking process by its nature may lead to eventual escape of methane into the atmosphere and it is of course a potent greenhouse gas. This whole fracking thing keeps us locked into fossil fuel use and diverts us from renewables, storage, and reductions in energy wastage, which is where we should be putting maximum effort.
All you need to know about fracking is as follows:
Lord Howell, who advised William Hague on energy policy and is the father-in-law of the chancellor, George Osborne, said in the House of Lords that fracking could take place in the north-east without any impact on the surrounding environment. Howell later apologised for “any offence caused” by his comments and said he didn’t believe the north-east was desolate.
It isn’t the benefits that people are concerned about, they are fairly obvious despite it being yet more carbon based fossil fuels. The concerns are about the safeguards and consequences of a future problem. It is the uncertainty about the risk of an environmental disaster seen as outweighing the benefits in the public mind. It should also be remembered that the people promoting fracking are those who stand to benefit so the public suspicion is that yes of course they’ll downplay the risks. Perhaps effort should be put into devising schemes to cope with any foreseeable disaster (and loss compensation and mitigation) to help educate the public. Investment also needs to be put in place to improve renewable energy systems to avoid unnecessary exploitation of the deep carbon stores.
Missed was the political independence fracking gives the UK over Russia’s foreign policy and the EU’s dominance. Fracking gives the UK the power of energy supplier to European countries fearful of energy shortages.